Sunday, June 01, 2008

Roundtable

Jim: Roundtable time, this will be a rush transcript. If there's an illustration, it's done by Betty's eldest son. Participating are The Third Estate Sunday Review's Dona, Jess, Ty, Ava and, 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, 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, Ruth of Ruth's Report, Wally of The Daily Jot, and Marcia SICKOFITRDLZ. All but Dona, Ty and myself are in Puerto Rico. The three of us are in South Dakota. We're all working on getting out the vote. Dona suggested that before the roundtable gets started proper I talk about the edition thus far thinking that will mean less time on "A note to our readers" which is the last thing written each edition. We immediately got to work and I hear Ava and C.I. laughing at that. Ava and C.I. went off to write their article for this edition and had a lot to cover. They emerged a little over ninety minutes later with more pages than you could estimate. Jess immediately grabbed it and said it was no problem they went long but that he was going to split it into two pieces which immediately had Ava asking, "What did you not do?" Meaning they busted their asses and we were supposed to be working as well. What did we produce? We've got one truest of the week selected. We talked and we talked about the roundtable and the talking was done with the hope that when the roundtable took place we'd be more focused and have less to talk about during. Which brings up a point Keith caught. In last week's "A note to our readers," I mention that Mike, Wally and myself wasted time in that week's roundtable by talking about sports. Mike mentions that in his "Barack: Stupid or a liar?" and Keith e-mailed, "If I just read it, it seems like, '15 minutes, what's the problem?' But when I put it together, I'm seeing that you mean you each spoke for about 15 minutes." Yes, Keith, you are correct. 45 minutes of sports talk that was never used and never going to be used and that Ava and C.I. didn't even take notes on, it turns out. That and other interests we tried to get out of the way while Ava and C.I. were working. Now I need to do an apology. In "And the war drags on . . ." --


roundtable
C.I.: In "E-mails and talking post."



Jim: Sorry, in "E-mails and talking post," which went up Sunday, C.I. responds to Kyle who repeatedly e-mailed this site to note how Ava and C.I.'s commentary "TV: Satan tires a sitcom" documents the very real onset strife of Back To You and did so back in September. Kyle has seen that strife reported recently and only recently so he wrote here repeatedly in the last few weeks to get that pointed out and I never included that. My apologies to Kyle. I was the one who nixed it because each week, I would tell Ty, "Put that at the bottom of the pile and we'll get to it if we have time." Kyle is correct -- I used the links he provided -- that what's being reported now was all documented by Ava and C.I. in September. In the same Sunday entry, C.I. talked about this site and for that I need to say "thank you." If you wrote last week, we probably didn't see it. When we logged in on Tuesday, actually Dona, she said, "We have over a thousand e-mails." Over half of those were people writing about an issue and then writing again to say, "Never mind, I saw C.I.'s explanation." As C.I. pointed out, I am the let-it-all-hang-out type. I never believe in pretty it up, Rebecca and I are both like that, and I'm fine with pointing out disagreements or tension. It's not always a love-fest putting out an edition each week and I never attempt to pretend that it is. But it caused concern that we were either at each others' throats or about to quit.



Jess: Or both.



Jim: Yes, or both. As C.I. pointed out, for the core six -- that's Dona, Ty, Jess, Ava, C.I. and myself and throw in Dallas as well although he never wants credit -- what's going on is nothing new. There has never been an easy or miracle edition --



Kat: Christmas weekend 2006 when Ava and C.I. steered the edition, Christmas weekend 2007 when Ava, C.I. and Jess steered the edtion.



Jim: Kat was laughing and so I am. Yeah, there were two easy editions and, coincidence?, I didn't participate in either. They were done by 4:00 am EST with the group writing and just had to type, edit and polish and done by 7:00 am EST. I'll assume that last half was just Ava and C.I. and Ava, C.I. and Jess.



Jess: No, Kat stayed up throughout. She was typing and editing.



Jim: Well there's the problem. When I'm participating, Kat doesn't type or edit. It's not me, it's Kat. I'm joking. But the point is that, except for those two editions, every weekend has been a nightmare and a rollercoaster and I enjoy every moment of it while it goes on, the strife, the conflict, the joy, all of it. Dona, Jess and Ty usually enjoy it Sunday night when they've had some sleep and Ava and C.I. never enjoy it. That's probably another reason they don't ever read what they've written here, it brings up too many bad memories. Last week, in the note, I pointed out that C.I. called an end to the roundtable and that it would have continued going on forever if C.I. hadn't done that. C.I. was kind enough to point out that anyone could have done that and it wasn't my responsibility. It's also not C.I.'s. Lana e-mailed to say she wished we had more personal things in these because she feels like, quote: "All your 'serious' stuff gets ripped off and if you included more stuff for the dedicated readers like me, maybe the vultures would be bored and go elsewhere." So we are going to talk about a number of things but Ty and I did go through as many e-mails as we could to pick out some personal stuff. Ty?



Ty: And we're on the road and have been all week. None of us have been home since forever. Ava, C.I. and Kat haven't been home since maybe April. So if you wrote something, got no reply and you're a regular reader, you are one of the many e-mails we didn't get to but hope to shortly. As Jim pointed out, Dona found over a thousand when she went in on Tuesday. We thought we'd catch up with what we couldn't get to by checking in later during the week but, of course, e-mails didn't stop coming in. So there's a great deal that wasn't read and I'm off e-mails next week. I'm taking two weeks off. Just noting that. Ava and C.I. will be helping out with the e-mails while I take a break and thank you to everyone helping out for that. With all that said, Priscilla wanted to know what was Kat's worst concert experience. She writes that she loves music and she loves Kat's reviews "hint, hint".



Kat: I get the hint and honestly planned to do a review this weekend. I have two reviews I'd like to write but I don't have the time. We were in South Dakota all last week until we left for Puerto Rico. I had honestly planned to do one Memorial Weekend but then we all did that piece --



Dona: Cutting you off for just a moment to get the links in on that: "Realities in the Democratic presidential nomination contest," "The Democratic Race for the presidential nomination," "hillary, hillary and only hillary, ""Only Hillary can win in November," "Hillary can win in November," "Want to win the White House?," "Realities in the Democratic presidential nomination contest," "Realities in the Democratic presidential nomination contest," "There's only one choice for Democrats," "The cruelest and most vile word you can call a Democrat," "Is the DNC paying attention?" and "Hillary's the only choice." Back to you, Kat.



Kat: That was the article we wrote together so everyone would have a post on Memorial Day. And no one was in the mood. I think Jim has that as a topic for later, so back to Priscilla's question. I think my worst concert experience was one I had a ticket to but didn't attend. A group of friends and I had tickets, this was in 1975, to a tour and I won't name the headliner but I wasn't excited by them. Fleetwood Mac was the opening act and Stevie Nicks and Lindsey Buckingham had just joined, the self-titled ablum was out and I was so excited. One week before the concert, exactly seven days before, a friend who has just moved to New Jersey called. She had a ton of problems -- self-created and no sympathies for the whiners who get involved with married men and then want to play no-one-could-have-guessed. So I listen for about 20 minutes to her non-stop whining and am really thinking, "When can I get off the phone?" She finally comes up for air by asking, "So what's going on with you?" Without thinking, I mention the concert. "Without thinking" because the woman was -- is -- very competative. I thought enough just to say, "I'm going to a concert next week." I immediately regretted it. "Who? I bet I've seen them already." Finally, to get her to shut up, five minutes later, I say, "Fleetwood Mac." It's all, "Oh, I saw them years ago. They're so passe. They're so" just all this nonsense she was known for and at the end of her rant, she and her attitude had so soured me on this concert I had been excited about, that I skipped it. Toni and Maggie went and not only had a blast, they had an experience. That's my only real regret in terms of concerts. That I didn't go just because that "I am always the first! I know everything! Always!" woman had soured me on it. Did Priscilla offer a bad experience?



Ty: No. She was just wondering about your worst. If she writes back with a follow up, we'll pass it on to you.



Jim: Okay, the group article was mentioned and I'm tossing to Ruth and maybe Rebecca to handle that. Why them? I'm trying to make sure that people like Ruth and Kat who speak the least in the roundtables have a chance to speak early on.



Ruth: Everyone was so tired. We were all, except Betty, back in South Dakota or still in South Dakota. C.I. had posted Sunday right before midnight, had done three entries that ran together time wise which meant C.I. started Monday with no sleep and hadn't been to sleep since waking up Saturday morning. Ava and Jess had tried to stay during that and were going through e-mails at The Common Ills to help out but they say they konked out around three in the morning Monday. So they were exhausted. Betty had Memorial Day plans with her kids and was busy most of the day and exhausted. Jim went out at some point Monday and rented DVDs thinking we could have a slow and easy movie day after a little bit of speaking. The little bit went longer and, repeating, C.I. was part of this and had not been asleep since waking up Saturday morning. We were all very tired, even those like me, who had gotten sleep each night. I hope I am not going on too long.



Jim: Ruth, you were picked to discuss this. Discuss.



Ruth: Okay -- and we are both laughing before someone e-mails about that. Okay, so we finally got back to the hotel and it was 5:15 p.m. It was hot and we were tired. I think everybody took a shower and slowly drifted in to the living area in Kat, C.I. and Wally's suite. Couples were paired up -- that's Dona and Jim, Elaine and Mike, Rebecca and her husband, Jess and Ava -- in case anyone's wondering. Marcia, Trina, my granddaughter Tracey and I were sharing a room and Cedric and Ty had a room that Wally was going to be in but there was a problem with the fold out sofa in that --



Kat: Plus, C.I. and I love seeing Wally's sexy legs as he struts around in boxers! I'm joking. Not about the way he struts around in boxers. And he does have sexy legs.



Ruth: Everyone's laughing. So Wally was with them and I think it was either Ava and Jess that walked in last or C.I. that did. Both Ava and C.I. were drying their hair with towels and neither had a pleasant expression on their face. We were supposed to be gathered to watch at least one of the movies Jim had rented. But Jim kept trying to catch Ava's eyes and then C.I.'s eyes and they were both ignoring Jim. Finally, Mike said, "So which one are we going to watch?" I don't remember the four films, sorry. We never watched any and that may be one reason. Jim replies to Mike, to everyone, that Betty should be home now and, if we call her, we can all get to work on writing that article together. I will not repeat what Ava said but I will note no one was surprised by her comments. I do not know if even Mike thought we were watching a movie. I think we all knew that we were going to be writing. Mike?



Mike: No, I really did think we were going to watch a movie. I knew C.I. -- this is Monday evening -- had a huge headache and, like you point out, had not been to sleep since waking up Saturday morning. I caught Jim trying to catch their eye, like you said, but Ava and C.I. were both avoiding him. So I really thought, "Even if Jim wants to write the article right now, there's no way he's going to bring it up." Also, like you pointed out, no one was shocked -- or bothered -- by what Ava so colorfully said when Jim proposed writing the article.



Wally: Right, we all burst out laughing, even Jim.



Ruth: So after that, Ava got up from where she was sitting and C.I. was already pacing, you could tell they were both ticked off. The only people they would like at was each other. Finally, they sat down on the floor and then Jim walks over with two legal pads and tries to hand it to them and Ava says, "We have to do this and we have to be the ones to take all the notes?" Jim's back was to me but Ava laughed and told me later it was the face Jim made. So with no one wanting to write the piece and Ava and C.I. strongly opposed to writing anything, we started. It was three hours later when it was finished and Ava and C.I. stood up, walked over to Jim, dropped the legal pads on the floor in front of him and said, "Type it up." Did I leave out anything?



Jim: Good summary. I'll note I did type it up. I'll note that I left out one word, forget typos, I left out a word, and that I also typed a "d" at the end of a verb -- I think it was a "d" -- by accident so we didn't have noun and verb agreement in one sentence. But on the process itself, I toss to Rebecca.



Rebecca: It was like July 4th when we all had to write "Are You A Writer For The Nation? If so, chances are you must have a penis," "Are You A Writer For The Nation? If so, chances are you have a penis," "Are You A Writer For The Nation? If so, chances are you have a penis," "Are You A Writer For The Nation? If so, chances are you have a penis," "Are You A Writer For The Nation? If so, chances are you have a penis," "Are You A Writer For The Nation? If so, chances are you have a penis," "Are You A Writer For The Nation? If so, chances are you have a penis," "Are You A Writer For The Nation? If so, chances are you have a penis," "Are You A Writer For The Nation? If so, chances are you have a penis," and "Are You A Writer For The Nation? If so, chances are you have a penis." Everyone but Marcia, I should say. And by that I mean, Ava and C.I. didn't attempt to hide the fact that they were not interested in it. Like then, and like these writing editions, Jim knows he just has to wait. He wrote a very cluttered sentence, about three in fact, early on, and I believe he make it so cluttered and awkward on purpose. He looked at me when he asked, "How does that sound?" It sounded awful but I thought he had an ulterior reason so I went along with it. "It sounds great!" You should have heard Ava and C.I. "It's too long! It has no snap!" and I forget everything else, they were critiquing it a mile a minute and Jim looks at them, with I believe insincere puzzlement, and asks, "Well how could I fix it?" Ava looks at C.I. and the two are just staring at each other and gritting their teeth and finally they explode, I think it was C.I. first, "A new map!" Then Ava, "A new math!" Then both together, "A new day!" with Kat adding, "Somebody fire up Nina Simone on the boom box." That's in reference to the fact that they were riffing on Nina Simone's "Feeling Good" which includes, "Its a new dawn, its a new day, its a new life for me." Which, people reading at my site who e-mailed, did catch and enjoy. After that, as I suspect Jim knew would happen, Ava and C.I. were participating and, by the end, they were putting the whole piece through the mill including coming up with a new opening.



Dona: And if Ava and C.I. hadn't already caught on to Jim's tricks -- if -- they know now.



Mike: So you knew too?



Dona: No one here knows Jim better than me and he usual that little stunt in other areas as well. I'll leave it to the imagination.



Jim: Yeah, I do. And Rebecca's right, I threw the question directly to her because I knew she'd back me up whereas Dona had already been telling me, since around three o'clock, "No one wants to write, don't bring it up, don't do it, Ava's going to explode." But, again, to me, that's part of the process.



Cedric: And I'm not trying to be mean to you here but that's why, while Rebecca defends that, a number of the rest of us get ticked off. We know that process. I'm sure Ava and C.I. knew it before you pulled it. But, on our end, because Wally, Ruth, Marcia and I had talked about this, C.I. had not been to sleep since Saturday morning and it was now Monday evening -- and Monday night when we finished the piece -- and that's why sometimes we really get vocal about, "Jim, cut it out."



Jim: And I never take offense to that, and don't right now, but the thing is, since January of 2005, I've done that with Ava and C.I. And I know when it really is the last line crossed, not only will Ava say so and walk off but C.I. will not just walk off with Ava -- they will always walk out together -- but will first tell me, "No." It's happened before plenty of times and Rebecca's been participating in these writing editions since at least April of 2005, not everyone at first, but she's done enough to know -- and has written at her site -- that, for example, when it is too much, C.I. will say so.



Rebecca: Right. Like when C.I. spoke up last week during the roundtable and said something like, "Jim, I'm not kidding, end the roundtable right now." That's never said humorously or sarcastically or with malice, it's a flat statement -- and when C.I.'s making flat, emotionless statements, be scared, be very scared. But, Jim's right, I have written about it. Jim's done that for years. The editorial is generally the last big piece written by group. Sometimes, if it's been a hectic writing edition, Ava and C.I. still have to go write their TV commentary, but most of the time that's done. We're all tired and we're all exhausted and Jim will be like a pitcher and put C.I. at bat. I mean, there are countless editorials that are nothing but call and response from Jim and C.I. And C.I.'s tired and if we're handling a difficult topic -- say veterans health care -- it can appear very brutal because C.I.'s already tired and doing a topic like that, or the silence on war resisters, is going to have C.I. crying while responding to Jim's comment or question. C.I.'s tired and there's nothing left. Any protective barrier has long since vanished and we have very raw and very strong editorials on those weeks. Now I know C.I. and I know C.I. will self-tear up -- tear up, not tear up, rip apart, self-rip apart -- to get something pulled together. So it doesn't worry me the way it does others and I know it can look brutal. But I know if it's an important topic, C.I. will do that. There are times when C.I.'s dictating a snapshot, that if you look, you'll see tears streaming down C.I.'s face. It can be a very brutal process -- either with Jim or solo -- but if the topic is important, C.I. will do that. I'm not dismissing anyone's concerns, by the way, I'm just saying when there's nothing left and C.I.'s a raw nerve, it doesn't surprise me or shock me. If you asked C.I. you'd be told, "We needed the editorial and it was an important topic."



Cedric: I love you Rebecca, but I'm always going to disagree on the value of that. I can think of one that's probably the best editorial that's ever appeared here but I don't think it was worth it. C.I. was wrecked after that editorial and we need to point out that after that goes up, after everything goes up here, the rest of us have a Sunday. We can sleep. We don't have to go online. C.I.'s still got stuff to write for The Common Ills. Since we're talking about this honestly, I'm going to say, honestly, if Jim knows that writing the editorial is going to include that, I'd prefer a heads up so I can skip it.



Jim: I will gladly give you that and if turns out to be that way unexpectedly, just hang up wherever you are and no hard feelings. I know it can be brutal. That's not me trying to make C.I. cry, that's me trying to get the strongest piece we can. So I'll bear down repeatedly with "because" or say, "That doesn't matter, those people don't matter" or toss out some right-wing nonsense because I know C.I. will come back with the most honest and strongest reply and, thankfully, during that Ava's writing every word. My attitude has always been, at the end of the day, did we produce anything worth reading for any reason. And I respect what you're saying, Cedric, and don't think "He's wrong, I'm right."



Marcia: As the newest one to participate, I'll say first off, that was the biggest shock when it happened. I think it's happened twice or three times while I've been participating and every time I was on the phone with others the next day asking about it. I'm with Cedric on this. And, as a reader in the past, and now knowing the process, I can go back in my head and identify editorials that I've read here and know they came about via that. I don't question their power or that they were strong but listening to the process itself can be difficult. Betty had a comparison that made me feel better. Betty?



Betty: To write at my blog, I have to really know Betinna. When I'm doing drafts, I'm always thinking, "What is Betinna feeling? How is she reacting?" And by the time I'm typing, it's another draft and I'm completely into Betinna. If you stopped me at that point and asked, "How are you, Betinna?" I would answer you without thinking. The editorials, the brutal ones, were surprising to me the first few times but I do know C.I. has a point where it will be, "This isn't worth it to me." So, for me, I factored in what I have to do to 'be' Betinna and assume Jim and C.I. are doing something similar. And to be clear, this isn't an every week thing. It's not even once a month these days. I'm also aware that if I'm participating, if we all are, if we're not just trying not to fall over from lack of sleep, Jim and C.I. aren't going to have to go through that process. But, like Rebecca said, it's like baseball with Jim being the pitcher and C.I. being the batter. I also think it helps if you know how much C.I. will do the self-rip apart to get an entry at The Common Ills. Not just the snapshots, but everything. And I can always tell when C.I. is just not in the mood to do that. When that happens, you get a link here and a link there in a morning entry and a bit of a wrap around. They're good entries and informative, but I always know, C.I. closed down and did it because, at that moment, there was nothing to give. But my saying that is not dismissing anyone's reaction to that process. I also know there's a gender dynamic in it for people who aren't participating that's really not playing into for it Jim and C.I. but has to factor in for some witnessing it. And when I've been blocked on something, I've called C.I. and I've gotten into character and C.I. would grab whatever the supporting character was going to be in the chapter I was writing. So I do see how it is a process. There are times, not because C.I.'s been brutal, where I've broken down because I was so into Betinna's character, and I will start crying on the phone -- less so now because this isn't a dark period for Betinna. But originally when that would happen, I would apologize and C.I. would say not to worry about it and I was just seeing it through Betinna's eyes. So I have a different take on the process in some ways than you do Marcia. Or Cedric. And I'm not saying either of you is wrong.



Jim: Okay, and I'm jumping in because we had a long pause where no one spoke. This is something that the core six is use to. That doesn't mean it's right and, judging by the silence, there is probably disagreement on this. I'll point out that Betty's right, if everyone's participating, it is far less likely to end up being just C.I. and me. I've done that with others of the core six and Jess can tell you, a prison editorial was scrapped because he got ticked off by that sort of process and walked out. But, for example, Ava and C.I. had a commentary on something about a year or two ago and in it they took on a woman repeating lies about autism. You may not know that to read it but for them to write that, they had to tear themselves apart. That is not an issue they thought about the day they wrote it. It's a very personal issue to them and to write that, and write is as strongly as they did, they had to tear themselves apart. Early on, we used to interview students each edition. If, in my usual way, C.I. thought I was being too tough on someone, I would be told to back off.



C.I.: I wasn't planning to speak during this and I'm not going to speak on the process at all. But I will note, in terms of interviews, Jim approached them as a journalist. And sometimes, I believe Adam Kokesh blogged about this at his site at one point, journalists can come off as unfeeling as they rush for their money quote or whatever. So I just want to be clear in one thing: Jim is not an asshole and Jim and I have no problems or ill will between us. Everyone participating knows those two points but I do not want to log into the e-mail accounts later today and find people asking.



Jim: And see, if you heard this -- and people who get the audio of Hilda's Mix will, we'll include this -- if you heard it, if you heard C.I. speaking just then, you would have heard irritation. I am much more of a let-it-all-hang-out type like Rebecca and others are of the opinion that it shouldn't be. And, in terms of C.I., who noted Sunday, "I have no problem with Jim. I love Jim," I will point out that I never have a problem with C.I. and I love C.I. too. In terms of what C.I. was talking about in terms of Kokesh, that's exactly the right example to use. Some reporter called him up and basically wanted him to give the worst PTSD experience he'd had and then wanted to be off the phone. I'm sure that did seem brutal and rude. But on the reporter's end it was about getting a strong story and getting it quickly. In terms of what Betty's saying, and I'll try to wrap this up quickly, she's right if others participate, it's less likely to happen and she's also right that C.I. will dig into it. I don't mean, dig in the heels in opposition. I mean C.I. will go deep into whatever the topic is. We'll change the topic because I know if Elaine was in front of me, I'd be getting a disapproving look.



Elaine: You would be.



Jim: And that's not a problem between us, just a disagreement over style or interpretation.



Ava: We do need to move on but I will add one thing quickly. Jim can be a real ass sometimes.



Jim: A fact that you never fail to point out to me. I'm laughing. Ty, get us out of this hole with another e-mail.



Ty: Okay, Joni just e-mailed that Barack's left his church. My first thought, since only Dona has read Ava and C.I.'s commentary -- now two pieces -- does that effect what they wrote and require an update --



Ava: No and we wouldn't if it did.



Ty: Okay and my second thing is Joni was wondering what we think that means "in terms of how it plays publicly."



Cedric: I'm wishing he had done it Friday so Wally and I could have grabbed it for a joint-post but it doesn't change a damn thing. He left. He apparently realized that he could no longer take part in that hate filled church --



Ty: You're almost quoting the article she copied and pasted into her e-mail.



Cedric: Big deal. It means nothing.



Betty: I've got to jump in or my father will be on the phone to C.I. asking C.I. to cover it. Like Cedric said, it means nothing. Now he leaves. After 20 years, now he leaves? What happened was no different than what had been happening. Michael Pfleger's nonsense, which I'm sure Ava and C.I. tackle in their commentary, happened last Sunday. True. But the Wright videos were not from this year or last year, they were a steady of stream of statements he has made over the years. It does nothing to enahance his image that he's finally leaving.



Marcia: Let me point out, because I do talk to Betty's father on the phone, that one of the most offensive things to him was that Wright was played by the media as "This is how African-American preachers are."



Betty: Right. And this is how Black churches are, like we've all got carackpots repeating conspiracy talk from the pulpit when they're not cursing or pretending they're having sex on stage. It's disgusting and how dare all Black churches get tarred with Jeremiah Wright's smut.



Marcia: So, here's the point. Or here's my point. Barack's been insisting non-stop "I'm a Christian!" Well, is he trying to say that he's a Christian because he went to Trinity and also trying to say that he went there, sat in the pews, but never paid attention to what was said?



Cedric: Great point! What was he doing? Day dreaming for twenty years as he stared at the stain glassed windows? Rebecca, what does it say to you from a p.r. stand point?



Rebecca: In terms of the spin he's trying to do, he is saying, "That church is not me. There is a great distance between it and me." In terms of the way this plays out, his decision to leave and his making an announcement about it -- he made an announcement Ty?



Ty: Yes.



Rebecca: It says, "I have no judement." It says, "I'd probably still be a member if it wasn't outraging so many Americans. If it wasn't a problem to my political career, I'd be staying with the church." I mean, I don't see how this looks good for him. Ty, could you read the statement?



Ty: Okay, first, he and Michelle sent Trinity a letter on Friday saying they were leaving and, as we've been pointing out for months, Barack may have never been a member. He wasn't baptized as a child. To become a member as an adult, having never been baptized in any Christian religion, he would have had to have been baptized. The fact that he's refused to say he was baptized, while noting his daughters were batpized by Wright, the same man who would have had to baptize Barack, may mean the joint letter was because Michelle was the only member of that church, not Barack. This is from Reuters and they quote some of his remarks on Saturday. First up:



This is not a decision I come to lightly and frankly it's one I make with some sadness," Obama told reporters during a stop in South Dakota. "Trinity was where I found Jesus Christ, where we were married, where our children were baptized."



Betty: He wasn't baptized. He was not a Christian before Trinity and he wasn't one there. I'm sorry to cut you off Ty but listen to that list. "Where I found Jesus Christ, where we were married, where our children were baptized." No, "Where I was baptized." He wasn't baptized and his "I'm a Christian" is one more lie. I'm sorry but as the daughter of a deacon I can't let that go unremarked upon. By his church's practice and policies, you have to accept Jesus and you have to be baptized. He obviously thought he was too cool for that and went along with attending. He was not a member if he wasn't baptized.



C.I.: Betty's long made this point, since the summer, I believe, and I want her to back up because we all know what she's talking about but someone's going to e-mail with, "Huh?"



Betty: If he were a Methodist or Baptist, for instance, before Trinity, he would have been baptized. As such, he could have joined Trinity and just had his membership transferred. That's handled by someone, usually the church secretary, sometimes the pastor or preacher, writing the old church and explaining that their member has just joined a new church. They consider that your membership being changed. You've already been baptized. You don't have to be rebaptized. Barack was raised by a non-believer and was never baptized. He has talked and written about how he was a non-believer until Trinity. By their guidelines, he has to be baptized to be a member. He can attend, he can attend every service, he can toss money in the collection plate, but he's not a member until he's baptized. His "where I found Jesus" is more legal smokescreen from the liar Barack. He does not -- and he has never said -- he was baptized. He wasn't. It's very clear. And C.I. noted in a roundtable a few weeks ago that reporters attempting to find his baptismal records were being told there was no such record. Barack has lied and the non-believers in Panhandle Media won't get that but Christians will. If you're not baptized in his faith, you're not saved. It's that way with many Christian religions. So, never having been baptized, his claims that he's a Christian are nonsense. Rebecca, Elaine and I have been talking about how this could play out for some time so I'm going to toss to them.



Rebecca: See Winona Ryder's Lost Souls. Who is the devil. Peter something, Ben Chaplin plays him. How is he the devil? He says he's been baptized! Winona explains to him that there's no record of that. He says there has to be, his family was religious. Catholic, so he would have been christened. But he wasn't christened. He's the product of a non-married coupling. Barack's mother and his father were not married. They were not married legally because Barack Sr. already had one wife when he met Barack's mother. He maintained that first marriage throughout and after Barack's mother. Now whether they had some meaningless, non-legal ceremony, who knows? My guess is they never did that. My guess is that Barack knows that and probably found it out when he first started researching his father as an adult. That's part of the reason he's so angry at his mother, blaming her for the lie. But you've got all the ammo you need to enrage the Christian right, and maybe more than just them. I don't know if people ever listen to religious right radio or not. I've caught it in the car over the years. Dobson's a kook, but compared to the rest, he's practically sane. It's the little ones you don't know nationally that you need to worry about. I remember being in Missippi during the 2000 election and switching stations in my car when I came across one of them explaining how Al Gore was the anti-Christ and how Revelations would be upon us if Al was elected. Now I don't think you can find anyone with a straighter, upstanding, Christian reputation than Al Gore in politics. Maybe I'm wrong and forgetting someone. But if they did that to Al, the Democratic Party better be prepared for what's going to be done to Barack. On small radio stations -- and this "community radio movement' everyone talks about includes a large number of religious right wing stations but no one's supposed to pay attention to that -- across the country, if Barack's the nominee, the 2008 election will play out with "the product of an unmarried couple, never baptized, Christians, the anti-Christ is upon us." The thinking is that McCain's seen by the religious right as not in touch. Whatever their differences with him, Barack as the nominee on the Democratic side would fire up the religious right to turn out for McCain for those two reasons.



Elaine: Like Betty said, you either are baptized in another Christian church and switch your membership over to Trinity or you get baptized at Trinity. That is the definition for members. Barack needs to get honest now. Like Rebecca, I don't believe he was baptized. He needs to state on the record whether he was or not and produce a copy of the record. For non-believers, it's no big deal. For some Christians, it's no big deal and his assertion that he found Christ at Trinity is more than enough. But for some Christians, a larger number, it is a big deal. And there is the issue of membership. He has claimed repeatedly to be a member of Trinity. If he wasn't baptized, he wasn't a member. If he wasn't baptized, he has falsfied the public record. This is not a minor issue and, if you think it is, you need to get out your radio, hunt around for low watt AM stations on the dial until you find a religious right channel and listen to some of what they are saying.



Jim: I'm glad Elaine spoke because she was on the list that Dona just passed me. Dona pointed out that Elaine, Wally, Jess, C.I. and Ava have not spoken enough. If you're reading this and think differently, it means others have pulled their statements. She also said Mike might want to speak because he doesn't have that much more than them. Jess?



Jess: I'll waive my time to Wally and Ava and C.I. are nodding so they do as well.



Wally: Okay. Like Cerdic said, if Barack had announced that on Friday, Cedric and I could have done several posts with that. It sounds like, I'm reading a Los Angeles Times article on my laptop, that Barack's saying boo-hoo, people are mean to Trinity so I have to leave to protect them. Which makes you wonder if he'll next be leaving Michelle because someone was mean to her.



Cedric: I was just thinking that! He left the debates because people were mean to him. He turned on Jeremaih Wright because he said Barack was just a politician.



Wally: Right. So the point is, he's saying, in one section, "It's clear that now that I'm a candidate for president, every time something is said in the church by anyone associated with Trinity, including guest pastors, the remarks will be imputed to me even if they totally conflict with my long-held views, statements and principles." Barack's not in hot water, and wasn't last week, over a guest pastor. Trinity has many guests pastors. He's in trouble over Michael Pfleger and he and Pfleger go way back. Since Barack moved to Chicago they've been friends. He called, in 2004, Pfleger one of his spritual mentors. Pfleger has given money to Barack's past campaigns. And Barack steered over $100,000 to Pfleger's church, tax-payer money, as a member of the Illinois state legislature. Until two weeks ago, Pfleger was part of his campaign, on a committee. Pfleger went to Iowa to campaign for Barack during the caucus. Pfleger is not just a "guest pastor" who spoke at Trinity last Sunday, he is very close with Barack and they have a long term relationship. He's lying in his statements, as I read them, because he's implying he's now in trouble over a guest pastor when he's in trouble because someone so close to him and his campaign spat out hate speech. I see it as an effort for him to put the Pfleger issue behind him.



Jim: And, Mike, will that work?



Mike: No. People have seen too many clips from Trinity and Pfleger's too close. People know what Catholics are like, Plfeger's a White Catholic, they know that's hate speech Pfleger spewed. There's no way to distract from that. Pfleger's the nightmare, he's the one Barack can't run from and scream "Racism!" about if he's criticized. Pfleger established that hate speech is common and welcome in Barack's private life.



Jim: And on that note, we'll wind down.













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