Hey --
Another Sunday. We managed somehow.
Along with Dallas, the following worked on this edition:
The Third Estate Sunday Review's Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess, and Ava,
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.
And let's move to what we came up with:
Truest statement of the week -- We had two possibilities from Joseph (and we had about 16 nominees for the truest). We went with this one because Palin was eliminated as truest herself. If we included one truest from her speech, some felt it would be argued that we were saying the entire speech was true (and that e-mails would pour in on that). The other reason is that only one politician has ever gotten truest and we'd like to keep it that way. The one who got truest really had to speak truth to power. (It was Bill Clinton.) So we went with this one from Joseph of Cannonfire instead of another one by him.
Truest statement of the Week II -- Chris Floyd, daring to go where other 'alternative' 'journalists' fear to tread. He stands in good company of journalists telling the truth re: Saint Barack The Christ-Child. He joins John Pilger, Bruce Dixon, Glen Ford, and a limited number of others. The small, the brave, the real reporters.
Editorial: The Sour Grape Girls -- Somewhere around Tuesday, C.I. came up with the "sour grape girls" and began talking about it with Elaine. (Who flies in tomorrow by the way. We're very happy about that.) She began talking about it with Rebecca and who passed it on to Ruth, who passed it on to Marcia, who mentioned it to Mike and before you knew it, I (Jim) was hearing about it. "That's an editorial!" I exclaimed. And then complained that others might have already written about it at their site. Fortunately, they all expected it would be an editorial so they just walked it to the line without crossing it. This may be my favorite editorial we've done this year. In part because it's completely unexpected from us and in part because I really love it when I read it.
TV: More sexism, more self-promotion -- Ava and C.I. turn in another blockbuster. We weren't sure how good it would be and knew that the edition probably hinged on it. (Gutter Trash, et al has made us very non-enthusiastic of late.) We had the editorial topic and Mike was bringing over Kwame Kilpatrick (he covered it at his site throughout last week) and that was all we had.
Reading it out loud to everyone, we began to realize we had the spine of our edition. With Ava and C.I.'s permission we snipped two sentences which became two other pieces. This is a very strong commentary from them and obviously nothing is going to stop them from continuing these.
The Palin effect -- This is one of the things we snipped. We participated in phone calls but thought it was just to drive home the point that, yes, there are Republican feminists. We assumed that, at best, a quote or two from them would pop up in Ava and C.I.'s TV commentary. Grabbing a sentence from their commentary allowed us to write this. As we were writing it, Ty checks the e-mail and a reader (Dee Dee) had e-mailed a highlight. And I'm being told we have a third truest. Okay, well anyway, this was a strong piece and I think we're all proud of it.
Truest statement of the week III -- We just put that up. Longterm reader Robyn e-mailed that and she also wondered if that was community member Heather? We don't think so because she didn't mention it and those aren't sites she visits (Los Angeles Times and The Daily Toilet Scrubber) that we're aware of. If we though it was community member Heather we would have put "Daily Toilet Scrubber" in place of that offensive site. But it's a powerful comment and we agree with Robyn, it's one worth making a truest.
Ty's Corner -- Dona wanted short pieces but no one could think of any. Ty was looking at various visuals we have but have never used and saw Beanie Babies in a box with "Ty" on it. (Ty jokes he is the black Beanie Baby on the right and the one on the left is his boyfriend -- that joke due to skin color, not due to political positions -- Ty is on the left there). He was advocating for a "Mailbag" piece this week which Dona shot down because it would turn into a roundtable and there were topics C.I., Kat and Ava asked us to table this week. (Want to guess which ones?) If we went into mailbag, we'd go into roundtable and, at some point, one of those topics would be blurted out. Ty agreed with Dona's points. But he wanted to note some e-mails. Seeing the visual, he proposed that while we tried to figure out short features, he write a quick column. We were all on board with that. A comment I need to make about this planned regular feature right now: This is Ty's feature. No one else's. No one else would try to horn in . . . except me. In 2005 or 2006, we tried to do a continuing online novel. It started great. And it was Ty's idea and largely written by him and Jess. I had to break off a piece of that, just had to. And I took it in a direction that worked for the next chapter but didn't work for what they were doing. That was the last chapter and the planned series was dropped. My ideas soured them both on the piece. I suggested they do a chapter where they made mine a dream (nightmare?) or just ignored that second chapter. But they were soured on the idea. So I'm stating right now that this is Ty's feature and I will not be horning in on it. I will not suggest themes, I will not do anything other than read it. (And help type and/or edit if Ty asks.)
Whose Media Center? -- This came about via another sentence we raided from Ava and C.I.'s commentary. We love this. We generally put the editorial top as our writing, then go to Ava and C.I. (the most popular every week) and then go through the rest in order of what we think are either the most important topic or the least important. (Highlights has always been the last topic -- even before Mike and company were writing it. It being last is not a reflection on our opinion of it, just where it has always existed -- long before anyone else started helping out here other than the core six.) Ty wanted his piece further down and Ava and C.I. insisted it had to go higher up because (a) it's a way to note a solo piece of writing and (b) Ty responds to the bulk of the e-mails and readers know him so this will be popular with our regular readers. We really weren't sure of the order this week and that's probably a good thing.
Kwame -- Mike has been covering this at his site. We thought about moving it higher up and thought about placing it after Ava and C.I. but Mike asked that it run low.
The vain woodman -- This was the only "short piece!" we came up with. Jess thought we should do something and remembered an illustration of Woodward we did back in 2006. Dona made a case for this being higher up (to break up the set piece feel) and that would have worked. With Mike wanting the piece he led on to be lower in the mix, we didn't want to move this higher.
Highlights -- Mike, Kat, Betty, Rebecca, Cedric, Elaine, Ruth, Marcia and Wally wrote this and we thank them for it. We also thank them for including this:
A note Jim's asked us to add. Readers have complained whenever Jim didn't include "A note to our readers" due to time constraints. He says they now have another reason to complain about that. The archives got screwed up when the template was switched in 2007. But reader Jody e-mailed to say that you can go through "almost any" week's edition via Google. For those that have "A note to our readers," simply type in "the third estate sunday review," select "search this site" type in "A note to our readers" and then the date (such as "September 7, 2008") and it will pull up that week's note and allow you to find what features were offered that week.
Thank you to Jody for passing on that tip. Obviously, we really did a note each week. It would make each week's edition searchable. I did blow it off several weeks because we were just too tired. With what's Jody's passed on, we will now always include the "note" (although I think we have for about two years now.)
So that's what we came up with. We would have liked to have done some coverage of Ralph but there wasn't time. I will note here what we tried to keep out of all articles mentioning Palin: We are not voting for John McCain. We are not voting for Barack Obama. Except for Ava and C.I. we are all on record as voting for Ralph Nader. (Ava and C.I. have not revealed who they are voting for and don't plan to.) Covering Palin does not require an endorsement of her. At various points last week, Ava and C.I. (in their joint-entry) and Rebecca and someone else (Marcia? Ruth?) wrote that they would say it one more time, they weren't voting for McCain. We're all tired of saying it. We don't think it needs said again. Ava and C.I. also pointed out that there are readers of our site that are supporting John McCain and every time we include that, it feels like a stab and like "Why do they keep saying that? We know that. No one asked, they just keep bringing it up." None of us had thought about it that way and we tried to make sure it wasn't in any of the articles. I'm covering it in the note and this is the last time you'll read it here unless we're answering a question. If you're a reader and you're supporting McCain, that's your business and we don't think any less of you. We don't think you're stupid or uninformed. We know you made the decision that feels right to you and we don't want to pester anyone about their vote. Our McCain supporters who have continued reading are as welcome here as any other reader.
Last point, Ty went on a vacation this summer. When he did, his name wasn't included in the "note," obviously. He didn't work on that edition. When he came back, for several weeks (as reader Bill pointed out last week) his name wasn't included. That's because we grab the sign off line from past notes (and we do the same with 'here's who helped'). No one noticed, until two or three weeks ago, that Ty's name wasn't in it. (No one participating in the note.) When we did, we made sure to add him to it. Except for one week this summer, he has worked on every edition. Bill pointed out, "It says Ty in your comments but Ty's not at the end, so I'm sure it's just an oversight." It was an oversight and a big one.
See you next weekend.
-- Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess, Ava and C.I.
***Ty adding that on Monday (September 8th), I posted "CounterSpin's wrong, Ava and C.I. are correct".