Ty: Amanda e-mails to say we should really think about returning to our book discussions. She points to The Los Angeles Times and worried about reading in the country now. She wondered if anyone wanted to touch this?
Elaine: Let me start that. World Can't Wait has a reading club. The Nation is now copying them and even got some ink with their lie of "Oh, look what we're doing! Reading club for the left!" The World Can't Wait already has a book club. We've tried to include that for several weeks so let me toss that out right now.
Ruth: Dona told those of us who do not generally speak a great deal to try and grab early on, so I will go next. I do not believe most people who buy a large number of books rush out to buy one based on a review somewhere. A strong book review may make me rush to get a book already on my list sooner but I have never bought a book because some newspaper recommended it. In fact, most of the 'reviews' are useless and filled with errors. That is especially true when someone decides to review 'left' books and to do several in one review. In terms of the left, I do not see it as a great loss -- papers dropping their books section -- because all that means is less lies and elss snark. In terms of fiction, most fiction reads I know avoid book reviews until after they have read the book to avoid twists and turns being revealed. The literay section was always a way for minor names to show out. It was not about reading, it was not about encouraging reading.
Mike: I can't add much because I think big points have already been covered. I will point out that we're really not interested. A number of people we might have raved over a book by or at least been kind, we're not interested. A lot of liars on the left have demonstrated that they're nothing but liars. Are we supposed to get on board another bad clip job by Jim Hightower? Where he says the same thing he's said for the entire decade? Forget his lying, I'm not interested in bad sequels that do the same thing over and over. A lot of people have provided lousy reads and what's the point? We did a book discussion of Naomi Klein's The Shock Doctrine: The Rise Of Disaster Capitalism right before the book came out and that was the last book worth it in my opinion. That was September 2007. I'm not interested in most of the garbage that's come out in non-fiction and I'm not interested in all the garbage passing for fiction that, at best, would make a good column about the foibles of life. Last April, Ava and C.I. reviewed the new 'book' by Amy and David Goodman. That was a lot of work and there's no way we could have done that in a book discussion. Or that we'd want to. Ava and C.I. found a way to provide laughter, to provide a fact check and to warn you about a really bad book. We had hoped to discuss Ann Wright's book which we all enjoyed but book discussions take a lot of time and we were waiting to pair it with something. Nothing ever came along. If a war resister puts out a book we will do a discussion. Otherwise, there's probably not going to be one. If Klein's book ends up being our last one, good. That was a powerful book to go out on.
Jess: I'd agree that was the best book to go out on and I know, from Ava and C.I., it will be mentioned again this week in their TV commentary. Jane Mayer's got a good book out and, if it weren't getting attention, we'd probably graft Ann Wright and Mayer's book together to do a book discussion. But most of the books coming out are garbage. We originally, in our first year, included fiction. We went to non-fiction because we thought there was enough escapism in the country. We then zoomed in on Iraq. That minimized the scope. But, as everyone's pointed out, there's nothing worth reviewing and that goes to the embarrassment that is today's so-called 'left.' When we did book discussions we included people like Tariq Ali, people who had something worth saying. A lot of gas bags mistake themselves for book authors, they aren't and my attitude is that no trees should have died to feed their egoism so by not rushing to do another book discussion, we're doing our part to save the environment.
Dona: I want to make three points. First, community member Folding Star did book discussions at A Winding Road. When FS shut the site down, that really only left Martha and Shirley in the community. They do a year-in-review book piece at the end of each year. If you look at the books we discussed here, a number of strong beliefs and ethics were promoted by the writers and, as we all saw, they are nothing but liars. To use one example only, they spoke of the need for more options and for more coverage and to break from the MSM. As they've demonstrated at their websites this year, they practice nothing they preached. They played us. We're not interested. Third, there is the time factor. Mike does his own site, is now in grad school, works and does a column for Polly's Brew each Sunday. He actually has covered two books this summer in those columns. But that's a time limitation. Ava and C.I. are on the road every week speaking out against the illegal war, they're doing the TV commentaries here, they are doing two Hispanic TV programs a week at El Spirito. C.I.'s doing a column for all community newsletters. There is a limit to the time any of us have. So for all of us to read a book, it better be worth reading. That hasn't been the case. Jim Hightower's the best example of that. Why did he even put out that 'book'? I'll read anything and saw that when a friend of C.I.'s sent it over in galley form. I'll read anything but I made it to page 21 before I sat it aside because I'd already read that garbage before and garbage is the word for it because he's nothing but a Barack cheerleader. When all you have to offer is cheerleading, you're not a critic. You have no high ground to mount.
Jim: Okay. We are trying to work the e-mails. Ty, there were two angry ones?
Ty: Yep. First up, Sylvia is "highly offended that you chose to quote and link to that woman allegedly writing about sexual assault who couldn't even use the term sexism." I have no idea what she's writing about and she hasn't replied back to my e-mail. Anyone?
C.I.: She's referring to a woman who wrote an article that never connected the dots. Syliva's correct that the woman did not use the term "sexism" while writing about sexual assaults, institutional sexism and a variety of other topics. I linked to the piece in the snapshot and it was at all community sites except Elaine's. I purposely waited to link until it was Elaine's day-off because I knew Elaine would have been faced with whether to edit that portion of the snapshot out or not. She loathes the woman and has made that very clear at her site. I don't care for the woman either. She was linked to for the topic. As Sylvia points out, it was a half-assed piece of writing because she couldn't use the term "sexism." If it's any consolation to Sylvia, the woman has used the term on this topic, at least in private conversations, and I can remember an exchange a year or so ago when she was using it to describe the same events -- using it with me. I would assume she was too chicken s**t to use the term. I'm sorry that Sylvia was offended that I linked to the piece. I did so in the larger scope of sexism against women and I clearly use the term "sexism" in that passage. If that counts for anything, great. If not, I'll be more careful about linking to that woman in the future. Repeating, I share Sylvia's concern and agree that the failure to use the term or connect the dots made the article almost entirely useless.
Ty: Okay. I'll be asking who after this roundtable is over. Elaine's whispering who it is to Mike right now. Next angry e-mail, Brad, not community member Brad, writes "Ava and C.I. use 'bitch' all the time. They used it twice two weeks ago! Who are they to criticize anyone else for using it?"
Ava: First off, we don't say that word in our own lives. We really don't. Second of all, the two pieces he's referring to are "TV: Gossip Girls and Barack's Bitches" and "Editorial: Faux outrage drowns out actual news" -- the latter is a group piece but our comments are identified as such. In both instances -- try reading, Brad -- there is an explanation that we are responding/commenting on inter-office e-mails at a 'feminist' institution which used that term to describe Hillary repeatedly during the primaries. If we're reviewing a soap opera or a body wash operetta, the term may pop up because it's a soap opera archetype. When Tina Fey used the term she was using it as a sense of power -- and we noted that -- but when Tracy Morgan was using it he was just being a pig -- and we noted that. If a woman wants to use it, it's the same as an African-American using the n-word meaning that it's loaded with complexities and it can be misinterpreted. Obviously, Brad would be one of those who would misinterpret. In terms of the two pieces in question, the term is applied to both women and men and, when we've used "whore," we've done the same. If you can't grasp the difference between Fey's usage and Morgan's usage, you're probably one of those White boys moaning that you can only use the n-word to your friends. Regardless, both pieces Brad whines about note why we used the terms -- and I don't mean in Jim's note to the readers. We were very clear in both pieces why we were using the term. Again, it's not a term we choose to use in our lives. It was used for a reason and I stand by the usage.
C.I.: As do I.
Ava: Brad needs to try reading harder. There are many things that are proposed here that C.I. and I kill because we say, "Yes, it's funny but some people aren't going to get that far." For example, one year -- it may have been this year -- April Fool's fell on a Sunday so Jim really wanted to do an April Fool's feature. People aren't going to all read all the way through and will mistake the feature. We did one where C.I. and I had to yell to get a note at the opening that this was a parody. We got that note and, even so, e-mails poured in about how "That never happened!"
Jim: I know the feature Ava's talking about, so I'll just add, we said that in the opening sentence and labeled it as a parody. After that happened, I became less inclined to do those pieces because Ava and C.I. were correct that drive-bys don't read. For that reason, if we were still doing this site next year, I wouldn't even propose an April Fool's Day feature. I think I need to add to Ava's comments here. There are many words we have considered using over the years and, when we do, Ava and C.I. always ask, "Would you say that if the person was ___?" or "If you change ____, would you say that?" It's been a learning experience. And I mean that in a good way. In terms of both pieces, we've all seen the e-mails Ava and C.I. are referring to and the b-word was hardly the worst term used. Ava and C.I. were comfortable for those features using the b-word, there were other words that could have been used to respond to those 'feminists' that Ava and C.I. weren't comfortable using, such as the c-word. If you can't grasp the difference, you need to find some remedial sites to go to. Maybe Highlights will beef up their online content? Ty?
Ty: Sarita e-mailed with a question about the mirror sites. C.I., Rebecca and Cedric have mirror sites. Sarita wondered why they don't always post immediately after?
Rebecca: I'll start that. If I'm on the road with Ava, C.I. and Kat, I'm using my laptop. If there's wi-fi in the area, I'm on by that, otherwise I'm on dial-up. Blogdrive has some ridiculous video footage that they run across the top. If I'm on the laptop, that's slowing it down and it's just easier, after I've got a post together finally and had several browsers open, to just reboot because I'm low on memory space. If I shut it down, I sometimes don't bother to log back on. I'll let Cedric talk about the way we divide that up.
Cedric: Okay. If I'm the last one posting, I usually grab Rebecca's site for her and cross-post as well. On Thursdays, because C.I. is the last to post, C.I. offers to cross-post for us with the note that it may not go up until Friday morning. That's fine with us, one less log on and cut and paste. So our Thursday posts often go up Friday morning. In terms of Friday or Saturday posts, we will try to cross-post while we're working on these editions. If we don't, C.I. will usually cross-post for us on Sunday night when doing "And the war drags on" at The Common Ills. I actually am on dial up all the time at home because we don't have DSL in my area. I have never complained to C.I. about videos at The Common Ills but, for the record, I do understand why there are requests that none be posted on the weekends. It slows the page loading and it's not just a little bit slow. And if you try to do something else while waiting for it to load, you're asking for that to be slow as well. Those little clips Blogdrive runs at the top of the page also slow me down. I know what Rebecca's talking about. But the short answer is that all of us with mirror sites, help each other out. I post C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot" at the mirror site for The Common Ills most days and cross-post it at my mirror site as well. Since Wally's always been on the road with C.I. and Ava and Kat since May at least, if Wally and I do our joint post late, I will ask him to see if C.I.'s willing to cross-post for me because I'm just trying to get into bed. By the same token, Rebecca and I will swap out throughout the week on who's doing the cross-posting. Those of us with mirror sites are always doing that.
Jim: Why don't you talk about the mirror sites in terms of why? Start with Cedric.
Cedric: I started my site at Blogdrive. Everyone had -- I believe this is still true -- asked C.I. to talk them through setting up on Blogspot/Blogger. I started on a weekend and didn't want to bother anyone. I figured out Blogdrive largely because my nephew had a site there for about two weeks and said it was easy. The Common Ills mirror site was already on it and I knew European members preferred it so I thought they'd appreciate the gesture. A few months after I started, I switched over to Blogger/Blogspot. I'd mentioned to C.I. that I wanted to and C.I. called and talked me through. Since then, that's been my mirror site.
Rebecca: My readers are largely high school and junior high. I hadn't planned to have a mirror site. But this year, for some reason, new filter program began blocking out my site at many schools. Probably because "Sex" is in the title. I changed the title for a brief time, just dropped "Sex," but that didn't help. So I created a mirror site called "Politics and Screeds." There's no problem with the mirror site being accessed on campuses. That's why I keep the mirror site and why I started it.
Jim: C.I.?
C.I.: The UK Computer Gurus were long urging a mirror site. That goes back to the end of November 2004. At one point, Blogger/Blogspot was down completely. The next time that happened -- I'm referring to being down for several hours -- I got a call from UK Computer Gurus saying they'd already set up a mirror site at Blogdrive for The Common Ills. They went with that site because of the look and because it was easy to copy and paste in it. So that day, entries went up first at the mirror site due to Blogger/Blogspot being down. That's happened many times since and why it exists. Many members prefer the mirror site and that's why things continue to be reposted to it. It's a hassle. DSL is what I'm on and Sunday night when I'm going through e-mails and have several browsers open to hunt down things on Iraq, the computer will be so slow. And I understand what Rebecca and Cedric are saying because you really just want to be done. You just want to get in bed. And you're waiting and waiting for everything to load. Originally, I just used cross-posted and that was it. Now if I'm late, I try to put it on the right day because there's a calender you can navigate at Blogdrive and members will complain. So on Sunday, I may be cross-posting Saturday entries but I'll put them with a date stamp for when they went at the main site.
Jim: People ask why we don't have a mirror site and the reason is that Dona, Ty, Jess and I have all cross-posted for C.I. and it can be a pain in the butt. It seems like it would be easy and go quickly. But that's not the case.
Ty: Betty and Marcia, these questions were e-mailed just for you. "Are the community sites all going to dark after the election as planned? Would you really shut down your sites? Marcia, you just started."
Betty: Marcia's pointing at me. Yeah, I would if everyone else went dark. If I was starting a site today, it wouldn't be a fiction site. There has been so much I wanted to comment on this year that was beyond Betinna's scope. If the community sites continued -- even some -- I would seriously consider continuing my site but doing it as a blog. I have a lot of kind e-mails and I know people enjoy it but I still have to write my latest chapter and I have put that off forever. It's just too much of a hassle these days. And while commenting on what's going on in the world seems easy to me, I know that many feel it is a hassle to do a website period. I don't know what everyone's going to do and assume that we'll all decide the day after the election. Some will probably stop. My own guess is Elaine would be the first. And I don't mean that in a Rachel on Friends kind of way about how Phoebe just drops right out. I know Elaine's busy and I know she was drafted by the community into doing a site. So I always assume that the day after the election, we'll all be on the phone together discussing do we continue or not and that Elaine will say, "You do what you want, but I'm tired of it."
Elaine: I could see myself saying that.
Betty (Con't): So I don't know. And I'm sure Elaine doesn't even know. If I stick to my outline, it's a very dramatic ending for Betinna and I love her so much -- she's like a real person to me -- that I'm not sure I'll stick to my outline. I don't know what's coming and I know it's not that far off. I'm just trying to get through each week, honestly. Marcia?
Marcia: Unlike everyone else, my site really did just start. So I don't know the horror stories that so many do. I mean there are posts that people have worked hours on and lost. That's really not happened to me. I've lost one post -- that I worked 30 minutes on -- and to me that was the end of the world. So I can't speak for them. Speaking only for me, if I was going to continue, I would probably want it clear to all who read that I am not necessarily doing a post every Monday through Friday. I mean, TCI's is about four years old now and C.I.'s never had a day off. I couldn't do that and I wouldn't do that. And C.I. does seven days a week. I would also ask/suggest that the Iraq snapshots be shorter. That would be one of my demands. That's not because it's a chore for me to repost them. That's because I think C.I.'s putting way too much work into them and I don't feel it's fair. I know at roundtables for the gina & krista round-robin, C.I.'s often talked about how the site, if it continued, might do a one day post. But we're dropping back to a 2006 roundtable for that. I just post five times a week. And there are times when it's too much for me. If it weren't for the Nader campaign, some days, I would blow it off. I'm being honest here, I hope that's okay. But if I've got nothing to say, and sometimes I really don't, I know that I can repost the snapshot and get the word out on Iraq and post something from the Nader campaign and get the word out on that. There are days that I wouldn't post if it weren't for that. Can I talk a bit more?
Jim: Sure.
Marcia: One thing I think we all know is that C.I.'s going through a ton of e-mails. But the rest of us do have e-mails -- not anywhere as many -- and we do have to do research. C.I.'s doing an odds and ends e-mail daily now on things that had to be pulled from the snapshot to get it to a size that would let it 'hit' the site by e-mail. So we go through that. And that helps. But even so, we're hunting down things and that means we're reading a lot more articles than we're posting about or linking to. There's a lot of work that goes into it before the first word gets typed. I didn't realize, until I started my site, how much work went into it. If you were just doing three lines, it would probably be easy. And you see sites that do that. Three lines on one article and they've worked! We all do a lot more work than that and because we are spread out around the country, we all are reading different papers. Which, at its best, allows us to pass on things to others. And I wanted to mention that because there is so much help and support from everyone that probably never gets noted enough. Kat will find something and pass it on. We really are on the phone throughout the day talking to each other. Ruth and I are on the phone before we both start blogging. That's our routine. I boot up and grab the phone if Ruth hasn't already called me. We then discuss different things from the day and what we're finding online. After that, we're blogging.
C.I.: Just to be clear, because some may think Marcia 'just started,' she started her site at the end of January.
Kat: If I could make one point here, there's nothing wrong with saying, "I'm not in the mood." I did that last week. Put up some Ralph information and the snapshot and noted I wasn't in the mood and whatever it was that had pissed me off. That wouldn't work for C.I. but the rest of us need to remember that. When time runs out for Mike, he doesn't get angry e-mails, "You should have posted more!" Or he's never mentioned it to me. When Rebecca's baby is very hyper and she has to type, "Okay, gotta stop," no one holds it against her. Like Elaine, I'd be one of the ones saying, "Do what you want, but I'll probably stop." Or that would be my opinion right now. But Elaine has repeatedly stressed to me that if it's not in you to blog, don't pretend. Don't sit in front of the computer for hours trying to get a few paragraphs so you can call it a blog post and call it a night. Now that won't work for Betty due to her current set up. But most of the rest of us can use that advice.
Wally: And that's something Kat, Cedric and I have talked about. We can, if we're just so tired, Cedric and me on our joint-posts, just do three lines. We're humor sites. We don't have to knock ourselves out when we don't even want to blog. Kat's got three reviews right now in her head that she needs time to write. And there is no time. That's the reality. Betty, if she could take a minute, has her chapter. She's talked about it with me. But she's waiting until the first break in this writing edition to try to dash it off. There just isn't enough time. If your entire life was online, there might be enough time. But there's no one participating in this roundtable that's a pajama blogger who lives in a basement and isn't out there active in their communities trying to end the illegal war. I'm on the road with Ava, C.I. and Kat and I love speaking with the groups and try to go to everyone. But there are late night ones I have to bail on because Cedric and I have to figure out our joint-post. I don't know how I'd vote -- and I don't know that we'll have a vote. I think we'll all look to C.I. and say, "Do you have another year in you?" If the answer's no, then that will be my vote as well. But if the answer is 'maybe' or 'yes,' I still don't know how I'd vote. I want to up my engagement in the world and I know we all do. Since I've heard of no new discovery of an additional hour in each day, I'll probably lean towards closing shop. Other than C.I., the thing that would change that for me would be if most wanted to continue and especially if Cedric wanted to continue. We started doing joint-posts, Cedric and me, back when we were both working on getting out the vote for 2006 and didn't have the time. I couldn't have done solo posts and done that. Cedric?
Cedric: No, I couldn't have done both. I was going to pack in my site then. I mentioned that and Wally said, "How about we do joint-posts?" That's a lot easier and has been a lot of fun. And I agree with everything Wally's saying. My engagement level offline is intense and I want to increase -- Dona's got a look on her face.
Dona: I'm sure I do. The question was for Marcia and Betty. Cedric can continue his comments but I don't want this to turn into everyone commenting. First off, I don't want everyone to feel bound in November by remarks they make here. Second of all, this type of conversation means this site and C.I. will get non-stop e-mails about "Don't stop." We don't have time to read those. Don't write them. Wally, Kat, Elaine, Cedric, Marcia and Betty have weighed in as to how they would vote in some form. That is at this minute. If they are tired, a bunch of e-mails asking them to please reconsider will not 'refresh' them. November is a long time away. We have many editions to focus on between now and then and our focus here will be on that. Cedric, thanks for stopping to let me speak.
Cedric: No problem. And Dona's right. There have been many times when everyone was sick of it and consider packing it in. That happened at the start of last month, as a matter of fact. So the responses given were just people thinking out loud. Come November, we may feel differently. But efforts to change our minds will, as Dona pointed out, only add to our feeling that we have no time. I was saying that I want to up my offline engagement. The illegal war is not over. All this time later and it's not over. We're all going to have to up our involvement and, on one level or another, we're thinking about that. Elaine's considering closing her practice to go on the road with Ava and C.I. This isn't a minor issue with us. Our 'leaders' have failed us. That's in the White House and Congress and it's in the alleged 'anti-war' movement. I'm going to say something here and I'm speaking only for me so no one else needs to comment, I find it disgusting that in Canada, a supposed anti-war movement, a supposed movement to help war resisters is so IGNORANT that they honestly believe Barack Obama is an anti-war candidate. I read that kind of crap and just think, "Why am I bothering to advance them?" I'm very serious and we all know one war resister in particular. Barack's not going to change a damn thing and you sound like a damn fool every time you go on record saying otherwise.
Elaine: I'll jump in to back up Cedric. Cedric's exactly right. When that war resister starts talking his garbage it only becomes clear how little he knows and it makes me uninterested in mentioning him, let alone quoting him. If he's that stupid today about politics, what else is he getting wrong? Let's also be clear that we know where the nonsense came from. It is exactly those type of stupid 'helpers' that don't need to help. But if we can take this to a larger point --
Dona: Absolutely!
Elaine: That has always been the problem and why, though we applaud IVAW, we have always said that the peace movement should not be turned over to any one group. IVAW is the only one doing any work today. They are the leaders and would be so if only on the default aspect of everyone else. But, to use a slogan of a group that's vanished, 'We know, we were there,' that's garbage if that means the whole world needs to listen to you. You have one area of expertise you can contribute. Others have other areas. A movement requires all of those. A war resister in Canada repeating the garbage lies that Barack is going to end the illegal war is of no use to anyone. First off, he's exposing how he may know what he saw in Iraq but he doesn't know the first thing about politics. Second of all, there are enough betrayers of the movement to end the illegal war without a war resister hopping on board. Third of all, if he really thinks Barack is the Christ-child, he should shut his mouth because "Vote for Barack! War resisters support him!" won't help Barack in a general election. To the contrary, it could lead to advertisements of, "They deserted. They took an oath and left the country. Now, as they try to make new lives abroad, they endorse Barack Obama. What does that tell you? Vote McCain." Jess, can you pick up this point for me?
Jess: Sure. Elaine, Kat, Mike and I have discussed this at length. And it's a topic discussed by all community members because why we became members of TCI is that the illegal war was dropped. In 2004, the peace movement decided their larger goal was not ending the illegal war, it was electing John Kerry. That destroyed the peace movement in the US. And after the election, MoveOn and all the other cowards didn't want to pick up the Iraq War. They wanted to run from it. So if you're really wanting to be part of today's peace movement, you either push Bob Barr, Cynthia McKinney or Ralph Nader. Those are the only three committed to ending the illegal war. That's reality. By promoting them, you can put pressure on the two big party candidates. By promoting them, you're promoting an end to the illegal war. By getting on board the cowardly, constant caving Barack, you're prolonging the illegal war. I found it very interesting that Adam Kokesh, during Winter Soldier, was able to leave politics out of Winter Solider even though he supported a candidate, Ron Paul, who was for actually ending the illegal war. There was one person who couldn't leave politics out of it and her candidate is a War Hawk. It cheapened Winter Soldier. Betty may want to add to that because she called it out in real time here.
Betty: Yeah that was disgusting, the dog-whistles that woman offered to prop up Barack, not once but in two panels. And the larger issue is why she was even speaking since she didn't serve in the Iraq War. Like Jess said, I give Adam Kokesh tremendous credit for using Winter Soldier to address Iraq and not to prostitute himself out for a candidate. Let me just repeat that Winter Soldier was sold as only Iraq and Afghanistan War veterans would be speaking. If that had been followed, the prostitution for a politician would never have taken place. It should not have taken place. Ron Paul needed a lot more promotion than Barack. Adam Kokesh is a highly intelligent man and no doubt realized that. But he didn't try to pimp his candidate of choice at Winter Soldier. It's a shame that another didn't have the same ethics. Back to you, Jess.
Jess: So the point is, Barack's not against the illegal war. Maybe you don't get CNN in Canada and missed his CNN interview June 5th where he revealed that the 'plan' that had so many idiots cheering wasn't even a committment on his part? But the 'plan' is not "end the war!" The plan is to remove a few troops -- as Ava and C.I. pointed out last week, he refused to give a number when Katie Couric repeatedly asked him for one -- and to continue the illegal war. The lie is that "combat troops" leave and only technical advisors and trainers and al-Qaeda fighters remain. Does anyone really believe that al-Qaeda is in Iraq? The limited number there came in due to the US starting that illegal war and being there. Technical advisors? Isn't that how the Vietnam assault went for a low-degree conflict to slaughter? Didn't we keep technical advisors in Vietnam for years? Trainers? Training in what? Counter-insurgency? Assault on civilians? Mike, you may want to add something here.
Mike: Sure. Barack never promised an end to the illegal war. An end to the illegal war is US troops being pulled out. Not a few, all of them. Now that his 'plan' and 'promise' has been revealed by him as neither -- and Samantha Power revealed that back in March on the BBC but now he has as well -- look and see who's calling him out? Where's the pressure on him? Where's the outrage? It's not there. He's not a movement. He's not anti-war. He's nothing but another War Hawk lying to the people. And I don't have six months of my life to give to trying to end the illegal war while all of his Cult wipes his ass and burps him while ignoring the illegal war. The peace movement can't afford it. And the war resister in Canada made his pro-Barack remarks in July. A month after Barack himself revealed the truth. There's your proof that you're not qualified to speak. Your proof probably should have been the fact that you're not in the US so you can't follow the realities -- as opposed to the hype -- as closely as you'd like to. But as if that wasn't insulting enough, what does Barack want to do with the ones he pulls from Iraq? Send them to Afghanistan. Talk about spitting on your host country. The 'anti-war' movement in Canada is very vocal about how Canada needs to pull out of Afghanistan. And here's a US citizen in Canada endorsing a presidential candidate who wants to continue the illegal war in Afghanistan. Like Elaine said, when you're that stupid, we don't even want to be tainted by quoting you. C.I. will do it -- and that's not an insult to C.I. C.I. covers many people and doesn't have to like them to do so. But the rest of us take the attitude of, "You choose to wallow in igorance? You're on your own." We're not as nice as C.I. We were all at C.I.'s last week and a friend dropped by joking about someone C.I. had quoted at The Common Ills. We didn't know -- maybe Rebecca and Elaine did -- that C.I. loathes them and has loathed them for years. We're not talking dislikes, we're not talking doesn't care. Loathes. Has loathed for decades. A very personal and very strong loathing that predates this decade. C.I.'s response was, "It's not about who I like or dislike." And that's a great attitude to have. It's not one that the rest of us have. I'll leave out Third which is weekly and an online magazine, but those of us with blogs do not take C.I.'s high road. So if you make yourself useless by being too stupid to grasp what a War Hawk is, we're not interested in you. Those are the breaks. We've got a lives to live and it's not our job to prop up your stupidity.
Kat: I agree with what Mike's said. To get back to Elaine's point, a warrior or former warrior has a place in the peace movement, no question. They can even rise to leadership as IVAW has -- for which we're all thankful because without IVAW there would be no peace movement today. But the movement is not going to work with only one segment participating or leading. On the road each week, one day a week, we're bringing along real leaders from the peace movement and students are getting the actual tools they need to take the lead. They are doing a lot that goes uncovered and unremarked on. They are the hope because so many 'leaders' have revealed themselves as frauds. The peace movement's job is not to provide cover for a War Hawk so he can be elected. The peace movement's role is to end the illegal war and to hold all who enable its continuation accountable. To return to what Cedric was talking about, when he or Wally is talking about upping their offline action, that's what they're referring to. They're referring to the fact that we all need to up our actions. I think Wally needs to share some news.
Wally: Okay, I told Kat, C.I. and Ava this two weeks ago. I'm not going back to school in the fall. College is on hold. My family's okay with that. Being on the road with them has really underscored how much work it is going to take to end the illegal war. I called Elaine at one point last month and asked her what, during Vietnam, made her decide to put everything on hold and just work towards the end of that war. She outlined it and probably guessed why I was asking. I then told Ava, C.I. and Kat my decision. So that's where my primary focus is now going to be. I'll also add -- and my mother told me to when I discussed this so keep quiet, C.I. -- there are three minor things that C.I. has to do every week. So I've got some form of income coming in, C.I.'s given that to me and is paying me for doing that.
C.I.: I will add to that. It's not minor. We were heading back from Boston one Saturday when I mentioned some stock that was about to go bad and how glad I was that I had dumped in but then couldn't remember if I had or not and had to reach my broker which wasn't easy on a Saturday when he was off in the Hamptons. So Wally's interacting with my stock broker which I don't have time for. It's not 'simple.' He's following a large number of stocks. It's not minor and Elaine's been on my case for three years now about how I'm not following that. I don't have the time. It's one of the things I've pushed aside to focus on the illegal war. So Wally's now overseeing that, which goes to his major and will hopefully help him have real life experience that will look good on resume as well as increase his knowledge base. He's not doing busy work and I don't want him to give the impression that he is. Someone needs to do it and I don't have the time. He's doing me a huge favor by taking that job. Elaine will back me up on that.
Elaine: I will. I was appalled when -- Let me back up. A friend called about a check C.I. had written and was mentioning the amount because he was hoping I would then donate in kind. It was a huge amount and C.I. can be a soft touch if someone tosses out a good song and dance. I blogged about this in real time. We're dropping back to the summer of 2006. I was also on C.I.'s case and saying, "No more instant donations." During Vietnam, C.I. never said "no" to anyone and ended up broke at the end of the illegal war. I don't want to see that happen again. I asked to see the bank statements and everything. C.I. has not worked since the start of the illegal war to focus on that. C.I.'s got the money to do that. But it really needs to be overseen. Marcia blogged two Fridays ago about how much the upkeep here -- we're all at C.I.'s -- must cost. It costs a lot of money. Among the many lectures that I've given repeatedly in the last two years is, "You have to follow your stocks more." C.I.'s a stock wiz and can turn a profit easily. It's a knack for C.I. But you have to pay attention to it and there wasn't time. The job that Wally's going to be doing is a real job. It's not a make work job. I doubt Wally needs any advice but I will offer that the stock broker's opinion doesn't matter and to always remember that. If C.I. is saying buy or sell, trust that. With the stock broker, you're only paying close attention to recommendations of sell. Not purchase. People tend to freak about the roller coaster, C.I. never minds the ride. Don't let yourself get pressured into agreeing to something just because the broker is doing a hard sell.
Wally: I will remember that and thank you for it. Also, thanks for sharing on the phone. Elaine's reasons were observations from the road, things she was seeing that made her grasp it was more important to put things on hold and really focus on ending that war. I see similar things today and that's why I made my decision.
Ty: Let me ask a question. Does that mean, Wally, you're moving out here?
Wally: Yes, I'll have my stuff in the room next to your's.
Ty: I noticed it was being repainted ahead of schedule two weeks ago and figured something was up. Which brings us to an e-mail from Gene who wondered "who of you" lives at C.I.'s. First answer, C.I. and Ava don't. They're rarely here. But it's C.I., of course, Jim, Dona, Ava, Jess, my boyfriend, myslef and now Wally. Kat, to answer Gene, doesn't live here. We're back to book for Chuck's e-mail. This is to Dona and Ruth and he wants to know what they're reading?
Dona: I feel bad because I read anything. My answer is Virginia Woolf' Jacob's Room. I feel bad because if you'd asked that last week or next, it would have been something less highbrow. Like Ruth, I read anything. I'm only on page 83 so I can't offer anything other than I'm enjoying it. And laughing out loud at some points such as "I could never marry a man with a nose like that." My summer project was to finish out authors I've enjoyed so I've been reading Wolf and Edith Wharton a good deal this summer. I've also been reading the books you can find at any supermarket. I'm not a reading snob, I truly will read anything. Ruth?
Ruth: Like Dona, I'm wishing the question had been asked at another time. I have two of my grandsons with me this weekend, Jayson's who is a teenager and Eli who is a toddler. With Eli, Rebecca's son and Betty's two youngest children here -- her oldest son is too mature to be read to -- I've been focusing on reading to the kids. One book that I read to all -- including Betty's oldest son who really loved it -- was Jamila Gavin's The Robber Baron's Daughter and I don't know if that's out here yet. C.I.'s copy was from England. I thought it would be a lighter read than it turned out to be, but all of Betty's children loved it and even Jayson got caught up in it when he heard me reading it. I would really suggest that adults read the book. I loved it and my summary, without revealing twists and turns, is "Things are never as they seem." Including this book which I picked up from a stack of books at C.I.'s based solely on the cover and it is so much beyond the cover.
Betty: I'll jump in just to back Betty up on that. My kids can't stop talking about that book. If it's not out yet here, I'll be going to Amazon UK next week to order the book because they love it too much for us not to have it in the house. We also need it because my daughter, the youngest, forgets plots twists and when she's telling me about the story, my middle child will correct her. They can't stop talking about the book and to avoid large arguments over what was in it, I'm going to need to get a copy. C.I.'s mouthing to just take this copy but I actually think one person who really loved it wants it: Ruth. Ruth and I will talk about it later but that's how good it is. As much as my children can't stop talking about that book, Ruth can't either. She means it when she says adults need to read the book.
Ruth: I do. But your kids loved it and I have already got a stack I am taking with me. I do not think your kids can wait for a delivery from England. Every day, you will be asked, "Is it here yet?"
Jim: So, Amanda, we did end up with a mini-book discussion this edition. And Dallas says the book isn't released in the US but Amazon -- US version -- does have two used, paperback copies, signed by the author. Click here to order it from Amazon UK and let me add that I heard about that book all week -- it sounds like an exciting read -- and I don't know how Ruth managed to read it outloud. First off, it's a thick book. Secondly, you've got the fact that when she would get to a natural stopping point, all the kids would plead for her to continue, which she would. I heard the last section, about the last fifty pages probably, and it really is a strong book. I wished I'd been hearing it read the whole week. It's not just kids that get caught up in the story of Nettie. Let me also point out, those are Amazon links. Once upon a time, we went out of our way to give 'independent' online bookstores a shout-out but there's really no point in that since they really aren't -- like just about everything 'independent' -- that different from the 'majors.' Also, we've never gotten an e-mailing complaining about the service anyone's had with Amazon, just FYI.
Dona: Let me point out that Jim didn't 'happen to hear' Ruth read the last of the book. Betty's oldest son was telling Jim about the book all week and all but dragged Jim into the room for the ending. They really loved that book. Ruth picked that one because it was a long book. She figured she could read a portion of it out loud to all the children each night and it would be paced so it would go through the entire week. "Are you going to read now?" became the big question every evening.
Jim: And on that note, we'll close the roundtable. Rush transcript.
