Jim (Con't): Sylvia e-mailed last Wednesday requesting a roundtable and that we tell her what we have so far. So, Dona, what do we have so far?
Dona: We do try to pay attention to the e-mails. And that address is thirdestatesundayreview@yahoo.com, by the way. A regular reader who is a big fan of mystery novels e-mailed and so we worked on a piece addressing that. That's completed. Mike and the gang have already done highlights, Ava and C.I. have done a DVD review and that's honestly all we have at this point.
Jim: Cedric and Ann went to the movies Saturday night. We've got art coverage if nothing else this edition, for those missing the transition. What did you two see and did you like it?
Cedric: We went out with another couple and they actually picked the movie. I didn't care for it. I'll let Ann talk about it.
Ann: I don't know why he's nervous, I told him I hated the movie. It was The Back-Up Plan. I like that song that's playing right now, tell me the title when I'm done with my quickie review. I don't need Jennifer Lopez as an actress if she's going to act six-years-old. I know that the lie is she's only 40 years old. But lie or truth, she's far too old to be playing the little twit she plays in one film after another. Grow up or play the bimbo on the arm of some guy. She's an embarrassment as a woman. I'm sorry. Give me Jada Pinkett or Sandra Bullock, real women who act like real women. I don't need a little girl speaking in a little girl voice thinking she's passing for young. Act your age Lopez.
Cedric: And Ann was actually looking forward to the movie.
Ann: I really was. She'd been gone so long, I thought she'd have to have done some growing up. I thought we wouldn't have her play the idiot-airhead of The Wedding Planner, for example. And I hope she gets that her characters look like idiots. A woman twenty years younger in the same roles might pull them off. She's not pulling off any of it. And not pulling it off, could they have used more soft focus during her close ups? Her image was fluttering so it practically sprouted wings. And she can't count on Alex O'Loughlin because he can't act. He catches the eye shirtless but that's about all you can say for him. Now what's that song?
Ty: Kate Nash's "I've Got A Secret." And Kat's got a review of Nash's album, My Best Friend Is You, that's going up shortly.
Ann: Well I love this song. Makes me want to dance.
Rebecca: I love it too. And love the whole album. And you should have heard the reaction during a roundtable for Polly's Brew a few weeks ago when Kat brought up the album. Kate Nash is British and they love her.
Jim: I think I like "Pickpocket" best of all the tracks on the album. Leigh Ann e-mails asking why we aren't covering the three Americans held by Iran. Does anyone know the status on them.
Mike: I've got the press conference at the State Department Friday where that was raised. I was going to bring it up, didn't know about the e-mail. But I can quote the transcript, Philip Crowley was doing the briefing, State Department spokesperson.
QUESTION: On the – actually, on the Iran, what – before going to Mitchell, what kind of shape are these kids in?
MR. CROWLEY: Well, I can’t get into too much detail. Obviously, the families – we do not have Privacy Act waivers on these --
QUESTION: The families have a website.
MR. CROWLEY: I understand that. So --
QUESTION: They have not been shy about talking about this in the past.
MR. CROWLEY: And which is the prerogative of the families. We have to respect their privacy. Obviously, we are concerned about their health and think the families have spoken publicly about this. We obviously believe that the detention is unwarranted, but the fact that they’ve gone nine months with no charges filed is of great concern to us. And as we have said – repeated over several months that, in our view, their detention is unjustified.
QUESTION: Well, you’re asking the Iranians to grant the families visas so they can visit them, and at the same time you’re saying they should be released immediately.
MR. CROWLEY: Well --
QUESTION: It sounds as though you’re not very optimistic that they’re going – the Iranians are going to release them at all if you want the families to be able to visit them.
MR. CROWLEY: Well, we have made that request. The Iranians, I think, have indicated a willingness to grant visas but for whatever reason have not – have chosen not to do so. We would like nothing more than to have these individuals on the next plane out of Iran and back here to the United States and with their families as soon as possible. Barring that, we obviously think that they have fundamental rights, including the right of these kinds of visits and the right to an attorney, and those have not been granted either.
QUESTION: Well, but back to the consular visit, though, in the statement by the families, they say that the Swiss reported that – to them that they were in bad health. Is it your understanding that they’re in bad health? Because they’re saying that this is what they’ve been told by the people that conducted the visit.
MR. CROWLEY: I understand that. And clearly, what we know about their status comes from our Swiss protecting power.
QUESTION: So does that concur with what they’re saying that they were told by the Swiss?
MR. CROWLEY: Okay --
QUESTION: You said you’re noting that the family is concerned about their health. They’re saying that they’re concerned about the health because of the Swiss telling them that they’re in poor health. So did the Swiss also tell you that they’re in poor health?
MR. CROWLEY: I have not received a specific report. We have no reason to challenge the judgment of the families. They know their children best. We have concerns about their health and welfare. We’ve had concerns since last fall. But again, I can’t be the specific source of information because of privacy concerns. But I understand the families have been communicating their concern. We share that concern.
QUESTION: Are the visas requests new? Your appeal today to the Iranians to grant the visas – I don’t remember that ever coming up.
MR. CROWLEY: I’m not sure that we have mentioned that publicly, but I think we made that request a few weeks ago.
Mike (Con't): So that covers the current status.
Rebecca: And the three are two men and a woman, Shane Bauer, Josh Fattal and Sarah Shourd. I've covered them at my site before. C.I.'s mentioned them, during the first two weeks or so. But they're not an Iraq story. So I have grabbed them since at my site probably twice or three times. I could cover them more. Or at least mention them more. There's certainly a great deal that's not known. For me, honestly, and I'm lazy, I'll admit it, the last time I covered them, I went to the website for some information and the website was down. So that's probably why I haven't covered them since. Something that minor, yes, will lead me to pursue some other thing to write about.
Jess: I just want to point out that the Iranian woman who seemed to be all but calling for a war on Iran -- Iranian-American woman -- didn't get a lot of coverage from us either. We don't pretend that Iran's a beautiful government and the people move freely but we also are very wary about contributing to stories which can be used to further along a war. I also think, as Rebecca's said, there's a lot of unknowns and I think C.I. stuck to that on the coverage provided in the Iraq snapshots.
Jim: On what is covered, we had three e-mails regarding Betty's "Twitter, tweets, twit" and Elaine's "The real Tina Fey" -- e-mails complaining and saying there were more important things to write about than Lindsay Lohan. Betty? Elaine?
Elaine: Betty, is it okay if I go first?
Betty: Sure.
Elaine: Thanks. First off, Betty and I can write about whatever we want at our sites. For myself, the story struck close to home for two reasons. One, I wanted to again point out that Ava and C.I. called it right in "TV: The Woman Who Loathed Women" but that wasn't the only reason. The actress' sister lives with her, her younger sister. The father showed up with the police blustering that Lohan wasn't mature or responsible enough to provide a home for her younger sister. If you know my own history in any form, you're aware that I lost my parents at a very early age and my brother was the one who raised me. That story or any other story on a similar note will always catch my attention. But if I want to write a celeb post or Betty wants to, we have every right to do so.
Betty: I think Elaine worded it very well. I would add, you're talking about a Friday night post. We don't generally go for hard hitting on Fridays, sorry. There's not usually a great deal of news on Friday anyway. Elaine wrote about it because readers raised it to her in e-mails and I did because a friend at work raised it to me -- both due to Ava and C.I.'s review. And for those who didn't read Ava and C.I., they called out Tina Fey for sexism which did include Fey participating in a skit where Fey played Dina Lohan, Lindsay Lohan's mother, and playing her as a drunken, foolish, sluttish, good for nothing whatever. As Ava and C.I. pointed out, it's Michael Lohan that Lindsay blames for family issues, not her mother. And there it was, Michael causing trouble and Lindsay writing for the world to see her thoughts on him and her love for her mother. But Tina blamed the woman in the skit. Tina always lets the man off.
Ty: And we had several e-mails come in pointing out what Betty just did. We also had an e-mail for Jess from someone who didn't sign their name and their yahoo id is basically numbers. The question was, if Jess cares so much about the death penalty -- Jess is strongly opposed to it -- then he should know which states allowing hanging and which allow a firing squad. Jess?
Jess: Due to Utah's upcoming execution, planned execution, we probably all know that it's the only one that allows a firing squad still. As for the hanging, that's the state of Washington and New Hampshire. And, for the record, you can be strongly opposed to death penalty and not know minor trivia. Ronnie Lee Gardner is the man who's asked for the death squad, excuse me, the firing squad.
Jim: And he's been on death row for over 20 years. Ruth, you wrote a piece this week entitled "Out-FM disgraces itself." Would you like to discuss that?
Ruth: The program is an hourly show which airs each Monday morning on WBAI out of New York City. Last Monday, during fundraising, they decided to devote the hour to a documentary that one of the hosts -- the only one appearing on Monday's show -- could not stop bragging about on air. There was nothing to brag about. A bunch of whiny little babies were not happy with how people chose to donate their money. Boo-hoo.
Jim: Is that all?
Ruth: I am not going to curse here.
Jim: Okay. Anybody?
Mike: I noted at my site that I listened because Ruth was so upset by it so I can talk about it. The documentary attacked, attacked is the only word, marriage equality. It whined about it. It whined that big money donors were funding it. Get over yourself, people will spend their money -- big or small -- however they want. You need to grow up. You really need to grow up.
Jim: Where did they want the money to go?
Mike: That what was especially stupid. As Ruth pointed out, what they basically wanted was a social safety net. You know what? All of America needs that. It's not an issue exclusive to the LGBT community. The safety net has been chopped away at for decades. What a bunch of losers whining the way they did. I lost all respect for that show. That they could air that crap.
Marcia: I listened and I was too angry to blog about it. If I had, I would've noted these pampered spoiled New York assholes would have probably had a fit over efforts to integrate counters in the fifties and whined, "There are real issues! Blacks can eat. They just have to eat over there!" It was stupid and the people were stupid. By airing that bad documentary and endorsing it in the remarks before it aired, Out FM revealed themselves to be anti-gay. All it was was a bunch of you know whats who want to overthrow the capitalistic system and do away with property and everything has to come down to that for people like that. You just wanted to say shut the f**k up. I'm surprised Ruth was able to write as much as she did with only one curse word. Marriage equality is a very real issue. You don't have to want to get married, you don't have to ever get married to believe that the issue matters. All those whiners wanted financial aid. And one was whining about discrimination which is illegal. He wanted a form of discrimination addressed. It's already illegal. What a stupid idiot. The whole gang was stupid. Whiny babies. And I especially loved the idiot who didn't know Gavin Newsom but just knew why Gavin pushed marriage equality. What a bunch of crap. And what kind of world are we living in when a Pacifica radio station rips apart a politician for standing up for equality? How very, very sad.
Jim: Alright. New topic. Stan, Friday night you wrote "Avatar" -- about the film coming out on DVD. I know from Ann's "Terry doesn't care for women" that she and Cedric were about to watch it Friday night. And they'd seen it at the movies. As did you. So tell us about the DVD.
Stan: Okay. First off, there are no special features. If you're looking for special features, you're not going to buy this DVD. It's the movie. That's about it. Actually, let me correct that. It has a number of languages available and it has Closed Captioning. That last part, Closed Captioning, is a feature especially worth noting. I'm thinking of Hilda writing a column for Hilda's Mix over a DVD she'd recently purchased and being surprised to discover it didn't have Closed Captioning which made it just pretty pictures for her and nothing more. And if it weren't for her column on that, I really wouldn't have thought about that. Thank you to her for bringing that up.
Jim: You got in on sale, right?
Stan: Yeah. I think it was $17.99 at my local Wal-Greens. It's also on sale at Borders and I'd recommend people go there just because they're offering a free gift if you buy the copy there. I don't know what the gift it but I'll pass that on.
Jim: Okay. So prices takes us to the economy. Trina, we're told the economy has improved.
Trina: As the saying goes, been down so long it almost looks like up. Who is it improving for? Some of the chattering gas bags on TV? Maybe so. For most people? No. Banks continue to fail. Unemployment has not gone away. Excuse me, massive unemployment has not gone away. Consumer spending increased a little. At the time of the year when people begin receiving the checks from filing their tax returns. Wow. I can't make the connection between the two so I must be a network evening news anchor! Of course spending goes up when people begin receiving their IRS refund checks. That's not surprising and it's really not news. There's an effort to trumpet the increase in home sales; however, look at the data, the only ones to make into the double digits are the south and the northeast. The rest of the country? That's not data that's saving the economy or really making a difference.
Cedric: If I can jump in, at our church this month so far, we've actually seen more requests for assistance. We do provide assistance at our church. So, in my area, there's no improvement. I know Trina works with her church as well and I'm wondering what she's seeing there.
Trina: I'm seeing the exact same thing. We're getting more people needing more help. And I don't see these people in need on the news but I see a lot of overpaid anchors insisting to the country that the economy has recovered.
Isaiah: I see that too, what Trina and Cedric are talking about. What I do not see is the alleged improvement that is supposedly taking place. At my job, for example, we're gearing up for another round of layoffs in the summer and we lost 30% in every department back in October.
Trina: And I mean, I don' t mean to put you on the spot, Isaiah, but I mean how does that make working when you know heads are going to roll and you're not sure whose heads they are?
Isaiah: It's very stressful and finally you either live on the stress or you do what I do which is to say, well, they'll do what they'll do and I'll have a job or I won't. If not, I'll go on unemployment.
Cedric: You've never been on it, have you?
Isaiah: Me? No.
Cedric: That's the real story here that I think's been missed in the news coverage of late. When they had yuppies to serve up, they loved to offer it in 2009. But there are people like Isaiah who've never not worked, never been laid off and they're the ones facing unemployment. That's the reality of the Great Recession. It's destroying things for everyone. It's not focused on any one segment and -- except for the rich -- no one is spared.
Isaiah: There's another element, to be honest, dropping back to Trina's question. I talked about it in terms of me and how I'm dealing with it. There's another side too and I don't want to be part of that side. There are people taking notes and keeping track of every tiny thing because if they're laid off they intend to take everyone they can down with them. You either don't worry about it or you go to the other extreme where you're so fanatical that you're trying to take down your co-workers.
Dona: There's a lull right now so I'll note this, and Ty can jump in anytime he wants, but I am noting that Wally, Ava, Kat and C.I. have not spoken.
Jim: I was saving them for last so we could talk about Iraq. There's a piece you wrote Saturday, C.I. that --
C.I.: No.
Jim: No?
Ava: C.I. and I are addressing Iraq in our TV commentary. We have tossed around a few ideas but we haven't written it. We're not going to use those ideas up now in this roundtable. So sorry.
Jim: You're serious?
C.I.: Iraq is the central focus for the TV piece, what took place in Iraq last week. And we're not able to discuss Iraq in terms of current events here.
Jim: Okay. Well the four of you -- Wally, Kat, Ava and C.I. -- attended some Congressional hearings last week and covered them in "Iraq snapshot," "Burris asks, Wilson sometimes answers," "Scott Brown," "Marco Reininger testifes to Congress" and "Iraq snapshot." So what did you learn from the hearings?
Wally: I'll start. C.I. covered two hearings, a House Armed Services Subcommittee hearing and a Senate Veterans Affairs Committee hearing. We all attended both -- and other hearings -- but Kat, Ava and I only covered the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee hearing. I reported on Scott Brown's participation in the hearing at Rebecca's site. Scott Brown is her Senator. He's the senator who was just elected last January. This was the first hearing I've been at where he's done anything. I found his participation interesting and, since I was guest blogging at Rebecca's, I made him my focus.
Jim: What stood out and include one thing you haven't already reported?
Wally: Okay. Well, I noted that he was prepared. I didn't note that he had some notes in front of him. He caught his shirt cuff on them at one point. I didn't report that either. So there's two things. He had specific questions. He had spoken to people in his district about some issues. If you read what I wrote, I think you'll notice that he starts with the general and then moves to the specific. He was specifically concerned with promised increases for GI Bill checks that had not been increased even though the increase was supposed to take place by January 1st. After a song-and-dance non-response, Brown had to return to the question to try to get an answer. A lot of senators didn't do that. Scott Brown was never the way that Laura Flanders and Keith Olbermann and the other liars made him out to be. No surprise. But what did surprise me was that he did his work before he showed up and he wasn't afraid to press for real answers. He didn't stick to a script.
Jim: Alright. Thank you for that. Kat, I'm jumping to you now.
Kat: The hearing had two panels. The first was the government witnesses who lied and wasted all of our time and did so at great length. The second panel was people actually effected. And they were hustled on and off in about a half hour. I was not pleased with that. By the way, I'm going to push that we include Marco Reininger's prepared opening statement in this edition.
Jim: That's fine. Explain who he is.
Kat: He's an Afghanistan War veteran and a college student now. He spoke of the problems he had and the problems others had. That includes veterans waiting for the GI Bill checks last semester. Waiting for those checks -- those promised checks -- which would pay tuition and housing and books. And not getting them. Veterans who were forced to depend upon others for generosity, veterans who were eating sardines and green beans, surviving on those two things because they were cheap. They waited and waited and where were the checks. He spoke about how one friend of his only got his fall check last month. There are approximately 500 still waiting for their fall checks. This was a huge scandal in September and October and we were told it was being taken care of. And it wasn't. In terms of one thing that I didn't include in my post? There was a woman speaking on behalf of the universities. She was prepared and organized and was able to detail the way the VA's system was not helping colleges.
Jim: Okay. Ava?
Ava: I went with Senator Roland Burris and I did so in order to be in the history books. I'm joking but it has been pointed out that my coverage of Burris -- this wasn't the only time -- tends to be part of a very limited coverage he receives. So when books are written about him -- and they will be -- they're going to have mine my writing for what he actually said and did in Congress. I like him, honestly. I haven't met him, I just know him from hearings. He is someone who can joke and can be serious and can alternate the two. He doesn't mind a joke in a hearing but he doesn't descend to sillyness -- unlike two senators I won't name who begin to think they're Conan and Andy riffing on one another in some hearings. What did Burris do? This was the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee's first hearing on this issue -- on the problems with the GI Bill. Which, as Kat noted, go back to September of last year. Burris wanted a walk through on how the VA was determining housing allowance. And that's a fairly basic question but the government witnesses couldn't provide a straight answer. So it took some time. As he noted, it took more time than he planned to spend. He asked for time to ask an additional question. I found his questions to be pertinent. I did already know about the housing allowance -- having attended the House Veterans Affairs Committee hearings -- but I thought he pursued it well and that it needed to be asked.
Jim: Ava, you're already a big donor to the Democratic Party. And your family has been for years. I'm pointing this out because between you and C.I., I'm just wondering why it is that you haven't met Burris. He's probably the only senator that one of you hasn't met?
Ava: Hmm. I know why C.I. hasn't. C.I. advocated for Burris at the request of friends, including House Rep. Bobby Rush. C.I. didn't know Burris then. For C.I. -- and correct me if this is wrong -- the responses from drive-bys were to attack so I don't think C.I.'s going to meet with Burris ever. Am I right?
C.I.: Yeah. I advocated on his behalf -- at the request of friends -- when the Senate began saying they wouldn't seat Senator Burris. He was the senator. They may not have liked it, but he was the senator. If they didn't want the then-governor to appoint someone, they should've impeached the governor. They didn't. He appointed Burris, Burris was the senator, the law had been followed, Burris needed to be seated. I've been very open from the start about why I advocated for that and about knowing Bobby Rush for years, long before he was ever in Congress. But Burris has been so attacked and distorted that, for me, I'm most comfortable being able to say, "I have not met him." That way when I defend him or note he did something strong, I can be accused of sticking up for him or praising him because "he's your friend!" but I know I don't even know the man. I have nothing against him and assume he's a wonderful person. But I want that wall because there weren't a lot of people defending him and those of us who did were ripped apart in e-mails -- Betty, can back me up on this -- so I don't want to do anything that ever gives that group of people an easy out to say, "Oh, well, she was friends with him that's why she defended him, that's why she praised him." I have been very impressed with what he's done in Congress. Betty?
Betty: Thanks for bringing me in. I love Roland Burris, I just love him. I look at him and I just love him the way I love my grandfather. And even now, all these months after, it still makes me want to cry to think about how the Senate tried to keep him out, how they refused to seat him the first day he showed up. And I have defended him at my site and when you do that you get the most hateful e-mail in the world. The first wave that came in really upset me. I mentioned it to C.I. and she said, "I'm so sorry, Betty, I should've warned you. There are a lot of people that just seem to hate him and seem to live to write nasty, little e-mails." Now I know they'll come in and they don't surprise me but they also haven't stopped. I've written about the senator several times this year and everytime, even now, I get the most hateful e-mails over it. As Ruth's said at her site and I've said at mine, I think he's shown real dignity and grace under all the attacks -- and I'm sure the attacks on him continue if I'm getting hateful e-mail just for writing positively about him -- and I think history will look back favorably on him. At any point, he could have given up and at any point he could have lashed out publicly. Instead, he did what needed to be done with his head held high. I'm very proud of him and, if you asked me what I'm most proud of at my site from 2009, I'd tell you it was sticking up for him when they wouldn't seat him. I've got a small site, nothing big, but I didn't sit it out and a lot of other people -- I'm not talking about this community; however, I am speaking of the Black community online -- a lot of other people chose to sit it out.
Jim: Okay and on that note we'll wrap up. This is a rush transcript.