Sunday, February 19, 2006

Ruth's Public Radio Report

Here's the thing about Ruth, she always swears that she'll write more briefly next time. You compliment her and she says, "Well next week, I'll be brief." She's not wordy. She's not taking up space. She's covering a lot with each report. We think she has no idea how much her writing is enjoyed.

Ruth's Public Radio Report

Ruth: The Pooper. Do you know the name? I did not. Kyle e-mailed something by The Pooper and I was honestly confused by it. I spoke to C.I. about the article by The Pooper this morning and was told, "It's your space. The only thing is we don't name him, we don't link to him." Then I remembered how C.I. had noted The Pooper last summer and compared him to Wolfman Jack without the personality.

Well The Pooper's lost his two jobs at Pacifica. So he slams Pacifica and Air America Radio. C.I. and Kat both explained the Air America slam. Pooper's job is now done, brilliantly, by Laura Flanders on RadioNation with Laura Flanders. This may hurt if The Pooper has the issues with women he appears to have and surely it does not help that Ms. Flanders is also a relation of a someone The Pooper has declared an enemy.

I will not pretend to know every detail of Pacifica. At the end of the 1990s and the early part of this century, there was an effort to take control from local stations. It was a strong effort and one that I am understating out of fear of mischaracterizing. But two camps lined up. On one side was The Pooper, another man we don't highlight and the board. In the other camp, the camp that emerged victorious, were the people who now produce the excellent Free Speech Radio News, Larry Bensky, Amy Goodman, Juan Gonzales, Verna Avery-Brown and other names we note and highlight.

The second camp's argument, which I agree with so if it I mischaracterize, I do so unintentionally, was that Pacifica should remain true the roots it was built upon. Their belief, which I agree with, was that privatization was coming to Pacifica. At the end of the 90s, The Pooper wrote an article for print that Mr. Bensky had a disagreement over. When Mr. Bensky wrote the publication, The Pooper responded in print that they were in agreement over what I will call "the big picture." The Pooper pulled comments he had written about the board that were critical and then tried to utilize those to dismiss Mr. Bensky's points. The Pooper's recently penned remarks from last month demonstrate, to me at least, that Mr. Bensky was right on in his comments.

The side of the voices we respect emerged victorious, Democracy Now! returned to the air, those opting for what was seen as privatization and authoritarian control lost out. Until recently, The Pooper had two programs airing on Pacifica's KPFK out of Los Angeles. On one, the host duties have been turned over to Laura Flanders and the program is now known as
and airs Saturdays and Sundays on Air America Radio as well as on other stations throughout the country. The other just went away. The Pooper, however, did not.

Among the many claims he makes about Pacifica is that they have lost listeners. He cites the ratings for a station carrying NPR programming in Los Angeles to make his argument. NPR is a nationally known name/brand. It receives large amounts of attention, though not always enough critical attention from the left. In addition, PBS stations promote the NPR stations on air. Pacifica owns five stations and its programming is carried on other stations.

If Pacifica has lost listeners, an argument The Pooper provides no hard facts on, that may very well go to the issue of media concentration and have nothing to do with quality. The Pooper feels it is a quality issue and slams people for the programming on Pacifica. He feels that there should be national programming that is syndicated. That is an argument I long ago opposed. Over the airwaves, each Pacifica station serves the community it reaches. The programming should reflect the tastes of the listeners.

As members know, I am a dedicated and loyal fan of Law and Disorder which airs on WBAI. It is one of my favorite programs. I would love it if everyone listened to the program and if every station carried it. But that is a decision that community radio should make for itself. The alternative is the canned programming that NPR provides. Months ago, a member asked my opinion on this topic and I still feel the same. As someone old enough to remember when NPR had life and spark in their programming, I strongly oppose top-down control of public broadcasting.

NPR today is a number of programs with different titles but the same voices. The same officials appear on the programming, the hosts speak in what is known as the NPR voice . . . The end result is bland programming heavy on bumper music and what someone must mistake for pithy observations while short on issues and anything resembling the public. When Daniel Schorr joined NPR that was a case of someone who had been fired from the mainstream media, CBS TV network, gaining an outlet on public radio. Back then it was still public radio and Nina Totenberg, among others, did real reporting. Today NPR is the refuge for big names. Today, some, like Cokie Roberts, continue their gasbag assaults on the public from the mainstream media as well as NPR. Ms. Roberts and Ted Koppel can move freely from coporate media to NPR because NPR does not reflect public broadcasting.

Until recently, I believed in fighting to save NPR. I have noted before that Rebecca was right about NPR and let me note that one more time. Every Congressional funding cycle, those on the left are stirred up to fight for NPR. NPR does not fight for us. NPR does not even give the left a voice. They are happy to hide behind us and let us do battle because NPR has no fighting spirit left in it.

In the last few months, we have seen what passes for news on NPR and what does not. The Downing Street Memos did not pass for news. Opposition to the war in Iraq early on became a nonstory for NPR. The only program to feature the voice of veteran opposed to the war pre-Cindy Sheehan and the summer of protest was The Tavis Smiley Show. NPR no longer syndicates that program to their affiliates. I noted in September that a report on what were expected to be the massive protests in D.C. shared time in a segment with what was expected to be a small counter protest in support of the war and that man in charge of the counter protest received more air time than did Ms. Sheehan. With the country opposed to the war in large and vocal numbers, the peace movement could finally get air time on NPR but not as much air time as "I love George Bush!" I will assume everyone knows that hundreds of thousands turned out to speak against the war in Iraq and that a couple of hundred turned out for the counter protest. That was not a surprise. It was expected to go that way. But to NPR, "balance" meant giving more time to the counter protest. A couple of hundred people carried more weight with NPR than did hundreds of thousands.

When the regular assualts come down on NPR, we are told we have to fight. "What are we fighting for?" is the question I found myself asking after the last battle. I fought that battle. I was strongly supportive of NPR. Looking back, I wish I had taken Rebecca's stance of "They don't try to serve me so they are on their own" or C.I.'s stance of "Here's what's happening, make your own decision." I did not do that. I advocated for members to stand up for NPR.

Seeing what we "won" after that was shocking. Katrina vanden Heuvel is a smart woman and a strong voice for the left. But I do not see the fact that she can now be a guest on NPR as a "win."
She should be a guest. She should always be a guest. She is the editor of the nation's best selling political weekly, The Nation. Not just the best selling weekly on the left, the best selling politcal weekly period.

I did not notice any other "wins." I noticed that they went back to doing what they always do, business as usual. Fisherman stories remain a staple on NPR but any serious issue that paints the administration in a bad light are downplayed and live coverage of hearings, something NPR used to provide, remains absent. When Alberto Gonzales testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee, it was Pacifica that carried that. NPR was quite comfortable to do their canned programming. Is the public really served by Renee Montaigne and Steve Roberts patter? By the seemless editing of Fresh Air? I hear nothing on NPR that reflects the mandate under which they were created.

The Pooper appears to be one of the ones screaming "identity politics!" and bothered by stories that cover women, gays, lesbians, transgendered, people of color, people living in poverty . . . In short, he appears bothered by the fact that Pacifica will not get with the mainstream program and greet serious issues with silence. The Pooper appears to think it is more important to, as my grandson Jayson put it, "run with the big dogs" then try to serve the public.

I do not want regular national programming from Pacifica. The aftermath of Hurricane Wilma which is something a number of members in this community had to deal with. Wally covered the aftermath at his website The Daily Jot. Gina and Krista covered it in the round-robin. I heard no interest on NPR and the only program I am aware that explored it on Pacifica was KPFA. The Morning Show. I read Wally's posts, I knew things were not "back to normal" in Florida. But hearing Andrea Lewis interview a woman fighting for the rights and the victims of Hurricane Wilma added a new dimension to my understanding.

Were Pacifica to switch to national programming, would The Morning Show be included? Would it still be The Morning Show with new people involved making the calls on how to serve the public? Or would it be a watered down version that had no interest in issues that the national media was not already covering?

What I have heard over the years as NPR has become more "professional" does not lead me to believe that Pacifica would be as inclusive as it is today if it attempted to follow the model of NPR in creating national programming.

What of show like Margaret Prescod's Sojourner Truth? Would it be a national program? How would they determine that? I fear they would look at the various hosts and then try to decide whether there were "too many" women or people of color hosting the national line up. What Ms. Prescod offers is her own unique perspective which cannot be reduced to gender or race. But when a decision is made at the national level, I am not so certain that race and gender would not be the basis for the final decision. If someone like The Pooper was in charge of the decision making and granted the final say, I am quite sure he would reduce Ms. Presod's fine work to nothing more than Census data.

There are shows that are not my taste. That has nothing to do with the quality of the programming, just the simple fact that no program can serve anyone. Nor should a program serve everyone, especially not on public radio. Pacifica predates NPR by many years so it came into creation before the LBJ administration created their mandate for public broadcasting. However, Pacifica, without such a mandate for decades, reflects the core principles. It provides time to views that may not get coverage in the mainstream. It informs.

First Voices Indigenous Radio is another favorite program of mine. I am an elderly, Jewish woman. I have no Native American blood that I am aware of. But I get excited as the time nears for that program to broadcast on WBAI. My grandson Elijah loves the theme music to that show and to The Morning Show and will stand up and shake his little body. I feel the same sense of enthusiasm to the program. It provides me with information I do not hear elsewhere, with issues I would not be aware of otherwise. Considering NPR's lack of interest in Native American issues, I cannot imagine that a national model for Pacifica would broadcast such a program. The argument would probably be that "those issues" can be covered in news reports. That really is not the case. The issues rasied on First Voices need to be discussed, not noted.

To any statement in this I could add "my opinion." That is what community radio is about, the opinions of the local communities. When Verna Avery Brown quit the national news service, she was quite clear as to why she was quitting. That she and her producer found their news judgements questioned was only one of the problems. After years of doing what she had done quite well, suddenly she was no longer qualified to make that determination. Did Ms. Avery-Brown's judgement take a nosedive or was it the case of certain stories making certain individuals uncomfortable? I believe it was the latter.

Back then The Pooper's position was at odds with the camp Ms. Avery Brown was in. That was the camp that pulled Democracy Now! off the airwaves. As I wrote some months ago, that is a national program. It is carried on over four hundred radio and television stations. All the Pacifica stations carry it. But the camp The Pooper represents was not interested in the appraoch that Ms. Goodman and company take to the news. There was concern over the Kosovo coverage, the East Timor coverage. Ms. Goodman and company fought for the right for Democracy Now! to be indpendent. Had they followed a national model, or let control of the show be determined by the then board members, it would not be the huge success that it is today.

I found the jabs The Pooper took offensive. Beyond that, we are odds as to what public broadcasting should offer. He favors a top-down model where communities will lost their say and be given national programming. I favor allowing the community to determine their choices. Thanks to podcasting and online streaming, Pacifica programs can be heard throughout the country, all over the world. Olive has e-mailed to say how much she enjoys various shows. As most members know, Olive lives in Australia. If Pacifica has lost some broadcast listeners, it has also gained many worldwide listeners.

"If." This report was renamed "Ruth's Public Radio Report." No one expressed concern over the name change; however, a few did wonder why I did not pick one program as I had before when it was known as "Ruth's Morning Edition Report." That is because I enjoy CounterSpin but calling it "Ruth's CounterSpin Report" would mean over looking other favorite programs. I considered calling it "Ruth's Pacifica Radio Report" but I wanted to leave it open in case one of my friends heard another sexist report on NPR. I am aware that NPR's "Too many women are being born!" panic reports were ignored by many. I am glad that we were able to address them here. Should I hear of another similar report, I wanted the title to allow me to include a critique of it. I also thought, "What is my point in renaming it?" One of it was to reflect the change in emphasis from fact checking to NPR to providing a resource to strong public radio. If I titled it "Ruth's Pacifica Report" readers from outside the community might see the title and think, "Great! I listen to Pacifica!" and read or they might see the title and think I was covering the Pacific Ocean or radio broadcasts from the west coast.

But the change in emphasis was necessary because I have found so many programs I enjoy and there are so many that members that enjoy as well. Who, outside of Pacifica, was making a point to get the word out on Pacifica? I am not speaking of providing a link on a list of permalinks or a blogroll. I am speaking of the issue of saying, "Here are some programs that are out there." NPR airs a program and it may make newspapers or various websites, but is there a place that regularly notes the programming on Pacifica?

If, again "if," Pacifica's listenership is down that may be due to the fact that it is not noted as often as NPR when people discuss public radio. My granddaughter Tracey just read Backlash by Susan Faludi. She saw a copy of it on my bookcase and finished it one day. She loves the book. Now if you are a longterm member, you are aware that C.I.'s noted that book quite often here. Beth wrote in a recent ombudsperson column that it was the most cited book here in 2005 and predicted it would be the most cited book here in 2006. Tracey is the one who got the word out to me about this site. She is a member who reads this site all the time. C.I. mentions the book once and Tracey may or may not have noticed. C.I. mentions it repeatedly and it makes Tracey curious.

That is how it is. A friend tells you that you should see a certain film and you think, "Maybe." A friend or a group of friends talk about it constantly and you start to think, "I may be missing out." Though an amateur web surfer at best, I do not see many links to Pacifica. I do not see any coverage of it outside of this community. I am very glad that The Third Estate Sunday Review is noting it as well as the fact that special programming has been noted by all the sites in this community. But if Pacifica has lost some listeners that may be due to the fact that there has not been as strong an effort to get the word out on it as exists, from outside this community, to get the word out on NPR.

When I listen to Pacifica do I ever have suggestions? Sure. As any listener does. They are not the jabs and slams that The Pooper offers. One thing I always wonder is if Pacifica did an additional fundraising drive, how would that go? Not one for the stations they currently have, but a war chest drive to raise money to purchase another station? I thought about that again last Saturday when C.I. noted a story on how an area in Texas was just getting their first NPR.

I have no idea how that idea would go over. But in my dream Pacifica, there are not fewer voices calling the shots and calling them from on high, the way The Pooper fantasizes, instead there are many more voices as Pacifica stations are added throughout the nation.

I think about that when I listen and I think about members who have e-mailed that their local NPR will not air Democracy Now! Billie, Eddie, Dallas and three other members have stopped contibuting to their local NPR due to that decision. They have no use for twice daily airings of Fresh Air and Morning Edition or for the lack of community coverage in their area since other than one show, they receive nothing but national programs. As Eddie pointed out a few weeks ago, "Community coverage appears to be an announcer giving the traffic report in the middle of Morning Edition."

The Pooper has his own problems. He favors top-down solutions, he is against the war but against the opposition to the war movements, and, of course, he has lost two programs including one to the relative of a long term foe. That may or may not be among the reasons he is now lashing out at Pacifica and others.

But there are too many programs at risk in his "solution." Too many programs that provide strong voices and worthy points of views. I have named a few in this report, but here are a few more: Connect the Dots, KPFA Evening News, Guns & Butter (which had a strong program Wednesday on genitically modified foods), Out-FM, Sunday Salon with Larry Bensky, Radio Chronicles, Christmas Coup Comedy Players(CCCP), KPFT's After Hours, WBAI's Nonfiction, and KPFT's Open Journal and The Monitor.

Upcoming programming notes:


1) KPFA's Sunday Salon with Larry Bensky
SundaySalon.org (9:00 am Pacific time, noon Eastern time):
This week on Sunday Salon... In our first hour... The Congressional Inquiry into Hurricane Katrina: What happened and could it happen in the Bay Area?
In our second hour... Michael Morales is scheduled to be executed by lethal injection next Tuesday -- now that the Attorney General has gotten 2 doctors to be present. A look at the case, medical ethics, and race & the death penalty.

2) KPFA's Radio Chronicles (Sunday, 6:30 pm Pacific time)
See all Drama and Literature Programming
The Life of Nina Simone - Young, Gifted and Black

Possibly The Pooper might want to utilize the "See all Drama and Literature Programming" link above since he feels the arts coverage at Pacifica is lacking? On Friday's The Morning Show, besides interviewing Matthew Rotschild of The Progressive on the topic of Vice President Dick Cheney's shooting his friend, Andrea Lewis also interviewed Carolyn Burke author of
Lee Miller : A Life which led to a discussion on Miller's work as a photojournalist during WWII, Man Ray and quite a bit more.










































Posted by at

Blog Spotlight: Mike bringing you up to speed

We asked Wally to explain why he picked this entry (that we all felt deserved to be highlighted).  His answer?  "Mike always starts the week off with enthusiasm.  Monday's are rough and Mike's always diving right in."
 

Wally on Sportsman Cheney's fishing mishap, Guantanamo prisoners

Good evening. Hope everyone had a great weekend. Let's kick things off with Democracy Now!

Christian Peace Group Charged Over Gitmo Vigil
Meanwhile, the US government has served legal papers to seven members of a US Christian group that held a vigil outside the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The group, Witness Against Torture, held a five-day march to the prison in December. Around 500 prisoners are being held at Guantanamo, most without charge. The seven members each face up to 10 years in prison or a $250,000 dollar fine. Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights said: "I find it extremely hypocritical that Washington is investigating this group for the 'crime' of traveling to Cuba. The U.S. government is flagrantly violating even the most basic norms of human rights -- such as indefinite detention without charges, denial of fair trials and, most importantly, torture."


Seven brave Americans willing to put their bodies where there mouths were stand up for the rights of us all. They don't know the prisoners. They went down to protest on humanitarian grounds. And the payback? Having charges lodged against them. Do you care? You should. You do know that Guantanamo Bay is just a holding tank and that imprisonment there doesn't mean the people are guilty?

From "CCR Applauds Confirmation of Guantanamo Detainees' Innocence in First Statistical Analysis of Military Documents:"

On February 9, 2006, in New York, the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) applauded the release of the Report on Guantanamo Detainees: A Profile of 517 Detainees Through Analysis of Department of Defense Data by Professor Mark Denbeaux of Seton Hall Law School and attorney Joshua Denbeaux.
Since February 2002, CCR has argued in the United States federal courts that the vast majority of prisoners at Guantánamo are innocent men who were kidnapped and turned over to the United States military for a bounty. The report found that "55 percent of the 517 detainees had no hostile act listed as the basis for detention" and a mere 5 percent were captured by U.S. forces, with the rest not picked up on the battlefield in Afghanistan but in Pakistan and handed to the U.S. by warlords and others for large bounties. According the report's careful analysis of the Defense Department records, 92% of the prisoners in Guantánamo were not characterized as Al Qaeda fighters. The men have been denied any fair hearing and detained in inhumane conditions for over four years, despite the Supreme Court ruling in CCR's case, Rasul v. Bush that they have the right to challenge the basis for their detention in U.S. court.
Said CCR attorney Gita Gutierrez, "Now, for the first time, the military's lies and misrepresentations about the prisoners in Guantánamo have been debunked through the military's own documents. Yet, these men remain in prison while at every turn the Executive seeks to avoid judicial scrutiny of its unlawful conduct."

That's from The Center for Constitutional Rights and if you go to that page, you can read a PDF format report. Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess, Ava and C.I. wrote "A Note to Our Readers" and I read that and thought, "Man, let me in on that!" Seriously, while we working on the F.U. edition of The Third Estate Sunday Review, we were talking about how serious stuff isn't being discussed. We don't mean people telling jokes. Like Wally, okay, The Daily Jot is supposed to make you laugh and hopefully think but it's humor. That's great. I love The Daily Jot. But there are a lot of "I'm so serious" types who aren't trying to make you laugh and they're being really lazy writing these jerk off columns and editorials about stuff like "Oprah had an author who lied!" and strutting around like they did something brave. If you're so serious, can you write about something that matters? Or is that asking too much? Too damn much is the way it looks. Flip through CJR magazine and see how serious they are or how pertinent to the world we're living in. They're a "journalism review" but they're not tackling any of the big issues. They're jerking off. (Read "Cowardly Journalism Review (Parody).") What's the point of that?


Report: US Aiding Construction of Morocoo Prison
In other news, the London Times is reporting the US is helping Morocco build a new prison for terror suspects near the capital of Rabat. The prison would be run by the Moroccan secret police, the Direction for Security of the Territory -- known as DST. Several human rights groups have accused the DST of torture. Morocco is thought to be one of the key partners in the CIA’s rendition of detainees.

What's the point of building more prisons for "terror suspects"? They've gotten away with it once, why not try again.

I'm swiping from C.I.:

James in Brighton notes Con Coughlin's "UN inquiry demands immediate closure of Guantanamo" (The Telegraph of London):
A United Nations inquiry has called for the immediate closure of America's Guantanamo Bay detention centre and the prosecution of officers and politicians "up to the highest level" who are accused of torturing detainees.The UN Human Rights Commission report, due to be published this week, concludes that Washington should put the 520 detainees on trial or release them.It calls for the United States to halt all "practices amounting to torture", including the force-feeding of inmates who go on hunger strike.The report wants the Bush administration to ensure that all allegations of torture are investigated by US criminal courts, and that "all perpetrators up to the highest level of military and political command are brought to justice".



That's from "And the war drags on" which is an entry focusing on reporting coming out of the United States mainstream media. C.I. does one of those (at least one) each Sunday. You read those entries and you get a different sense of the world then what our comfy, lazy press tells you (or doesn't tell you).

By the way, check out this from C.I. to read about outrage. We should all be feeling outraged by what's going on in what is supposed to be the land of the free.

And Ma's got a new recipe, this one requires no cooking and I can vouch for it, it's tasty. I hope everyone checks out Trina's Kitchen. And for some good belly laughs (nothing wrong with having a good laugh), check out Wally's "THIS JUST IN! DICK CHENEY HAS A FISHING MISHAP!" Here's the opening of that:

TODAY IN WASHINGTON, DC., THE WHITE HOUSE CONFIRMED THAT YESTERDAY VICE PRESIDENT DICK CHENEY SLICED OFF A MAN'S FINGER.
THE EVENT, AS IS CURRENTLY KNOWN, TOOK PLACE ON A SUNDAY FISHING TRIP. VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY WAS SAID TO BE ATTEMPTING TO GUT A FISH AND MISTOOK BULLY BOY PIONEER AND ENRON HERO KENNETH LAY'S RIGHT HAND FOR A FISH.

I tagged Elaine's site before I published, I just forgot to mention. Be sure to check out Like Maria Said Paz because Elaine's had a lot to say on the Guantanamo prisoners when we were on the phone earlier.








Relax. Yahoo! Mail virus scanning helps detect nasty viruses!
Posted by at

American Brushetta in Trina's Kitchen

Trina's latest recipe is an easy one and a starter for next week's. We hope you're stopping by Trina's Kitchen.

American Brushetta in the Kitchen

I had an e-mail from a young woman who wrote that she can't make anything but mashed potatoes (instant) and if there was "an easy recipe" using that, she would try to cook something.
Well there's an easy recipe for mashed potatoes but let's stick with instant mashed potatoes for a moment. Bonnie is a community member that I've exchanged e-mails with for about six months now. (Since she wrote a wonderful guest column in the gina & krista round-robin.) She's someone who enjoys cooking. So I called Bonnie and we discussed mashed potatoes. There are actually a number of things you can use them with. But if you're someone who's scared of your oven, as the e-mailer was, we felt this was the easiest thing that could get you used to using your oven. Here's the recipe.

Ingredients:
Instant mashed potatoes
4 slices of bread
1 fresh tomato
cheese
pepper

Make enough instant mashed potatoes for four servings. Set aside. Heat oven to 400 degrees. (You can use a toaster oven for this recipe but we're trying to get the e-mailer used to using her oven.) Place four slices of the bread of your choice on a cookie sheet, pizza pan, glass pan . . .(whatever you have). Spoon mashed potatoes on bread. Use spoon to spread the mashed potatoes on each slice of bread. Slice your tomato. I prefer slices but Bonnie says that she's made this for her kids with chopped tomatoes as well. Place tomatoes on top of the mashed potatoes. Pepper the open faced sandwiches in the normal amount you would use. If you don't like pepper, skip this step. If you add salt, add it here. Now top the open faced sandwiches with cheese. I always grated cheese when I made these for my kids but Bonnie said that when her eldest turned 12, he started fixing them for his siblings and he would use cheese slices. So use whichever you prefer, grated cheese or a cheese slice you would use for a sandwich.

Place the cookie sheet into the oven. You want the cheese to bubble. When that happens, you're done. Here's where cheese slices might work better because they will trap the heat and make sure the mashed potatoes are warmed as a result. If you overcook, you will burn the bread on the bottom. So watch the sandwiches (it shouldn't take more than five minutes).

Now what do you have? I don't know. I've never had a name for it. My grandmother would make them for us. I asked Bonnie if she ever knew a name for this and she didn't. So we'll call it American Bruschetta. If the reader will work on that recipe and let me know if it turned out, next week, we'll do a recipe for bruschetta.

This recipe is one that probably became popular when kids were hungry and a mother (of a father) was looking through the fridge and trying to figure out what to fix. It is wonderful on a cold day. You've got a warm sandwich that tastes good. It's an easy recipe. (You can probably make it even easier by purchasing already made mashed potatoes.) So I hope the reader will try it and anyone else who is nervous about using their ovens. It will get you over the hump and we'll go a little further with next week's recipe.

I don't see this as a place where I'm going to say, "Cook this! I do! So you should too!" I see it as a place where we can see that cooking isn't difficult. If you're reading this and you can identify something as the reason that keeps you from cooking (either than, "I hate it!"), please let me know and we'll see what we can do about it. Every recipe here will not involve cooking and I was tempted to do another recipe that didn't require cooking after I read the e-mail. But the reader stated she wanted to use oven but she just felt that everything was beyond her. We've exchanged e-mails and she's been using it on frozen pizzas this week so she's less nervous. But hopefully this recipe will make her even less nervous.

Are you a renter? If you are, your rent money pays for the oven. May as well use it. I want to thank Brady and Cedric because they both passed on that they tried last week's recipe (which required no cooking) and it turned out great. If it hadn't, I would still have wanted to note. C.I. mailed an issue of The New Yorker to me this week with a note to read a story inside. The note just said the essay started on page ninety. I was curious as I opened the magazine and discovered Nora Ephron's "Serial Monogamy: My cookbook crushes."

The essay isn't available online but it is still is onsale and you can also check your libraries for the February 13 & 20, 2006 issue. (It's a double issue.)

In "Serial Monogamy," Nora Ephron provides her usual straightforward and humorous commentary. She explains how she began her own cooking life and the various cookbooks that she learned from or was enthralled by. She also points out that, in Heartburn, she "included Lee's recipe for baked lima beans and pears (unfortunately, I left out the brown sugar, and for years people told me they'd tried cooking the recipe and it didn't work) . . ." My point in including that detail is that I love Heartburn (we talked about it two weeks ago) and I've made all the recipes in the book including the lima beans and pears. The first time I made that baked dish, the kids loved it. It was sweet and syrupy. My husband thought it was runny and wasn't interested. But the kids kept asking for it again and anything that gets kids to eat lima beans and pears is a good thing. So I made it a few times when it hit me that brown sugar would probably make it less runny.

That's where you should be in a perfect world. You try a recipe and it doesn't work out so you figure out how you can make it work for you. Cooking is like democracy, you don't just follow what's on the page, you participate.

You shouldn't live in fear in your kitchen (or of it) and you shouldn't live in fear in your country (or of it). When you explore your kitchen, you get comfortable in it. You should explore your country as well. The Patriot Act is being pushed through for renewal with little opposition (Senators Russell Feingold, Jim Jeffords and Robert Byrd were the only exceptions) and Bully Boy has set the terms for the debate on the warrantless spying of Americans because the press has allowed him to do so. It's about "national security." Illegal spying on Americans is not about "national security." If someone is suspected of something, you go a regular court or the FISA court and get a warrant. That's how it works in America.

If someone came in and told you that before you served lasanga, you needed to take the cooked dish, douse it in Palmolive and run hot water over it, you would know they were insane. But that has to do with knowing how things work. You need to know how things work in the kitchen, you need to know how they work in this country. This is your democracy. Use it.








Posted by at

Blog Spotlight: Cedric telling the simple truth

Like Mike and Rebecca, we think Cedric said all that needed to be said about a certain site. (Ava and C.I. are working on the TV review and we're saying "certain site" because we're sure C.I. would insist upon it and probably fight this as a blog spotlight due to the topic of the post.) Cedric's got a ton of qualities we all admire but one is he never misses the forests for the trees. You see it in this post.

You drop the Trash at the curb and let it go

Do people "get it"? Nope.

I got a number of e-mails on "the Scold." I think, "Good riddance to bad trash." You're talking about someone who has this image of herself as "inclusive" but she's not. Trust me, as an African-American, the few times I've gone to her site I've seen White world, White world, White world.

She's jerking off with lame topics every entry.

It's her loss, not the community.

I avoided talking to C.I. about this because judging from the tone of the e-mails I've received a number of you are calling for some sort of statement. I didn't want C.I. to think I was one more person saying, "So what are you going to write?"

There's no need to write anything. She's a White woman (girl?) living in a White world that wants to get on her soapbox about what people aren't writing about (important stuff) and then can't even follow her own scolding advice the next time she blogs.

She's nothing. She's trash. The first time my grandmother ever said that, I was shocked. I was probably about seven or eight and I said, "Grandma, God made all of us equal." She agreed with me but she said when someone wants to hold back others, they're "trash."

There are a lot of ways to hold back others. The most popular way is silence. She practices silence with regards to race. She won't note an African-American, she won't blog about an issue that has to do with the African-American community.

I'm looking at two forwarded e-mails. The first one basically says, "I felt like you just pulled the welcome mat" and it's to the Scold. Then the Scold writes back, basically, "I didn't pull the welcome mat!" She did exactly that and she did it a long time ago.

Who cares what her problem is? Who cares if she's pissed off that C.I. linked to Joan Mellen's
"HOW THE FAILURE TO IDENTIFY, PROSECUTE AND CONVICT PRESIDENT KENNEDY'S ASSASSINS HAS LED TO TODAY'S CRISIS OF DEMOCRACY"? Who cares if she's pissed off because the sun was shining on on her empty inbox at the start of the week or because she woke up with a boil on her butt?

That's what my grandmother means by "trash." Someone's poor, they're not trash. They're homeless, they're not trash. Someone's trying to hold others back, they are trash. That woman is trash. Forget the rest of the world for a second, in this country things aren't that great. They're not great for African-Americans, they're not great for gays and lesbians, they're not great for single-parent families. They really aren't great for anyone.

Now if someone's sole concern is herself and in whining day after day about herself, that should tell you something. If, in all her whinings or false claims (I especially laughed at her claim to be 'the one' promoting media from outside of the United States -- I think we all know which site dedicates Sundays to that) she can't write about the reality beyond her own comfort zone, she's trash because there are people fighting for survivial, forget their rights, just fighting for survival.
And she's not interested in that. As she promotes herself as some sort of 'progressive' or whatever the popular term is, she's playing the same handbook that always gets played.

At the risk of being rude to the community, this nonsense destroyed a great entry. You've got a taste of it in "Other Items" this morning. If you read the tail end of that entry, you know what we missed out on. I know very well because it actually happened in the book discussion before last. Jim said, "That's too strong to go up here, it belongs at The Common Ills." Because it's C.I.'s point to make and C.I. should get the credit for making it.

So the whole thing got pulled and those of us in the discussion have waited and waited for that to go up. It should have gone up last night. That was the plan last weekend. Instead C.I.'s dealing with "nonsense" (I agree with that word choice) that has nothing to do with The Common Ills. Trash wants to do something "attention-seeking" (as Elaine pointed out) and we're supposed to stop everything to address that?

Mike['s] angry and I understand that and understand why others are too. But I asked Mike to take Nina out, have some fun tonight and then, when he gets back, read my entry before he posts. I'm not angry. The word that describes what I feel is "relief." Why?

I don't think she was worth being linked to and now she's not. Good riddance. Trash was taken to the curb and it no longer pollutes the community.

There was never a welcome mat put out to the community. That was obvious when she attacked C.I. and Ava for highlighting an important front page story from the New York Times.
Now they highlighted it on Sunday, when it ran in the paper. On Monday, the paper's article was the talk of the net. Trash had already trashed Ava and C.I. on Sunday with some distorted reasoning of how it didn't matter (the story). Well the article did matter. But did you see her scream at anyone else that week for noting that story? No. She shut up on that.

The few times I'd read her (which were honestly in copy & paste e-mails, her site had huge troubles loading), she was obviously pulling that nonsense again. Like when she was screaming about the "free speech rights" of military recruiters - after C.I. had written repeatedly that recruiters do not have free speech rights. She was just trying to stir things up all along. She's a bitter person and we're all better off now that we don't have to worry about her.

Elaine told me that C.I.'s biggest concern was Billie and Wally. Billie because she did her Black History Month highlight the night before The Common Ills was pulled. I talked to Billie and she told me, "If my writing's that bad, so sorry, kiss my ass." I agree. If Billie's writing was a problem for the woman, and it more than likely was because she's one of those 'I am color blind!' types, then get gone. Don't let the screen door hit you where the good Lord slit you, but get gone.

I talked to Wally and he said C.I. had spoken to him in the same way Billie's phone call went. 1) Are you okay? 2) Would it help you if I posted something about this or would it make it worse for you? 3) Read _'s writing and think about the lack of quality before you question your own.

We're better off without linking to her. The woman is just evil. She's trash. In one entry a week, Ruth does more than that woman does in a month. Trash drags you down. You can try to make peace with it or to be tolerant but what's the point?

If someone's a racist, they're a racist. You're better off not associating with them.

So we're better off and she never resulted in anyone e-mailing The Common Ills (according to
Jess and Ava). The Common Ills didn't grow because of links. It grew because of the passion of the members. Now that passion is being misdirected. It's being directed to a "You must comment" movement. Why?

Why does C.I. have to comment on everything? Older members will remember we went through nonsense with Frank in Orlando. We'd have to constantly put everything on hold because he'd be ticked off and whining. And people were getting sick of it.

I think the energy is wrongly directed again. Trash is gone, rejoice.

Don't get bogged down in nonsense.

Did you read KeShawn's entry last night? It's funny and it makes some strong points. KeShawn almost pulled it because of this nonsense. He was worried what Trash might write. Guess what, Trash and all her Trashy brothers and sisters, will write whatever. It doesn't have a thing to do with what we're doing or what we're emphasizing.

If past experiences are any indication, C.I. could care less about Trash. But when everyone tries to draw C.I. into something, it is draining. When there's a community issue, C.I. goes through every darn e-mail. A few people who e-mailed today were noting C.I.'s comments in the replies that got sent out last night. Did you not get the point? Trash doesn't matter.

We do what we do in this community and we're not obligated to anyone. If someone delinks, too damn bad for them. It was a different issue when Kat was attacked. That was someone actively sticking their claws out. Trash isn't even a worthy opponent.

Her nonsense was as weak ass as everything else she does. So let's rejoice that we never have to hear anymore of her dithering thoughts about the White race (because that's all she could write about) and stay focused on what's important.

Today, Margaret Kimberly wrote about "Haliburton Detention Centers" and, if you think about it, the only other place you probably remember focusing on that was The Common Ills. That's what the really important voices do. They catch what could fall through the cracks otherwise. But C.I. won't be able to catch anything if everyone's screaming, "You must respond!"

Everyone needs to speak in their own voices online. And if they do, and they're honest, you'll realize quickly whether you're welcome there or not of if the person has anything worth saying.
Trash had a long list of topics that people should be writing about but Trash never wrote about them. Didn't we just go over this on Sunday at The Third Estate Sunday Review with "Cowardly Journalism Review (Parody)"? Those people make themselves useless.

I mean look at Trash's book reviews and you'll note that her idea of politics is Al Franken. That says a lot about her level. She has to read commentary because she can't handle actual ideas. For all her soap boxing, she can't go beyond Baby's First Political Reader. Ask her who Bayard Rustin was and she'll probably have to do a Google search before she can answer. And she fancies herself an "intellectual" while she reads those dumb-downed books (all by White males).
Where does she steer you? To a newspaper story. You seeing a big suport for indymedia there because I'm not.

She thinks NPR is alternative media obviously. She's another pampered, White woman who thinks she gets the news she needs from NPR's canned programming. A few minutes is about all the attention she can give to an issue and she needs the calming, White voice of NPR to serve her up the news. Her apartment probably smells like patchouli oil and is covered with cat hair. Are you starting to get the picture? She's sipping her latte from Starbucks and headed to the big-box book store where she will relate only with Whites except possibly for some African-American child that she'll feel is cute so she'll smile to the parent of the child, pay for her watered-down books and leave feeling she's really 'progressive.'

The thought of listening to Pacifica probably strikes her as "radical." She's more comfortable looking up her horiscope in Town & Country while NPR drones on in the background with all the voices droning on in that NPR sound as they play the usual lean right coverage.

That's your snapshot of Trash. She's not about promoting anything but what's acceptable to the mainstream. She doesn't challenge and she certainly doesn't support independent voices. (Do you ever see Trash promote RadioNation with Laura Flanders? No, that's too 'out there' for her delicate NPR sensibilities.) If you're lost, read "It's all White" because it addresses more reality than Trash ever could.






Posted by at

Blog Spotlight: Kat on where she stands (with us, eat your heart out war lovers)

We have one question for Kat? Where's that Cat Power review you speak of in this entry? Seriously, she's working on it and we're all awaiting it. Kat notes that she stands by "War Got Your Tongue?" an editorial that we all worked on. We'll add that everyone who worked on it stands by it.

Cartoons, speak out and check out Wally on Cheney's fishing accident

"Oh Kat," wrote one person, "how could you forget ?"

I forget many things. However, I didn't forget to list as one of my favorite cartoon heroines since he is, after all, a "he." Possibly, you meant who were his partners for a bit? I didn't enjoy them either. I don't think they even behaved like individual characters.

On the topic of cartoons, Candice e-mailed me a link which, if you go there, lists a number of cartoon movies. Here's the one having to do with That Girl:

That Girl In Wonderland (1974) Another Saturday Superstar Movie featuring the voice of . An animated Ann Marie (Thomas's character from her "That Girl" sitcom) daydreams herself into popular fairy tales such as Wizard of Oz, Snow White, and Cinderella.

I remember that one but I also thought I remembered one with a circus? Maybe I'm just thinking of the episode of with the crime at the circus? If I'm remembering right, the crook (or one of them) stabs herself so that she won't look guilty. That and the one where Sally's stalker, creepy -- very creepy, were probably my two favorite episodes. I quit watching the show when left. It wasn't the same after that.

Rebecca () asked me if I'd note an interview with ? As a fan of Walker and , no problem.

"I am a Renegade, an Outlaw, a Pagan" - Author, Poet and Activist Alice Walker in Her Own Words
February is African-American History Month. To honor it, we bring you a conversation with the renowned author, poet and activist Alice Walker. She is perhaps best known for her book "The Color Purple" for which she won the Pulitzer Prize in 1983, becoming the first African-American woman to win the Pulitzer for fiction. The novel was adapted into an Oscar-nominated feature length film and has been recently made into a Broadway musical. Alice Walker's latest novel is "Now is the Time to Open Your Heart."
Last month, 1,000 people gathered in the First Congregational Church in Oakland to celebrate the 30th anniversary of Media Alliance. We spend the hour playing Amy Goodman's onstage interview with Alice Walker. [includes rush transcript - partial]

I heard that today on the radio (twice in fact) and if you missed it, you should watch, listen or read it. Among other things, Walker shares a wonderful story about .

C.I. passed on an e-mail to me and the writer had just discovered 's "War Got Your Tongue?" and had a few questions. The most important was did I still stand by it? Yes, I do.

There's been more than enough silence on the topic and the silence continues. The troops will not be brought home until we can all speak with brave voices. The war will not end without us all speaking out and calling for an end to it. It's silly to think that you can say "Well in my private life, I am opposed to the war" and think that cuts it. Your private life? Why are you posting online, putting out a magazine or in any other way weighing in if you can't speak out on one of the most important issues addressing the nation?

This is still, for now, a democracy. You do have Freedom of Speech. If you don't want to use it, don't. But don't be surprised when you're called out on it. And offering up mealy mouthed statements of "Of course I'm opposed but I can't say that" helps no one.

In fact, not only do I stand by it, I think you can file something we all worked on yesterday under the same category -- "Cowardly Journalism Review (Parody)."

Does the fact that people are dying (on all sides) not matter to you? Is your corporate media failing you and you have no idea what's going on?

If it's the later, check out C.I.'s "And the war drags on . . ." and stop counting on corporate media to provide you with the news you need.

I'm a member of community. Obviously. (Check out the title of this site.) But one reason I am is because C.I.'s never shied away from that topic. When people were saying "pack it in, move on" following the 2004 elections, C.I. didn't drop the issue.

doesn't fade away at The Common Ills. Nor has C.I. ever made the idiotic statement, though someone did, that it didn't matter what the people thought, the decision belonged in the hands of the leaders. Not in a democracy it doesn't. A blogger really wrote that, a blogger on the "left," in the midst of 's original vigil. The same blogger also wrote that Cindy Sheehan didn't want the troops brought home. I may not be the most politically astute, but I do grasp basic facts. And that nonsense was one of the inspirations behind "That Wacky Web" which you can probably also file under the same "War Got Your Tongue?" heading.

"Silence equals death" is an old slogan. But I'd argue in today's climate, it's also shameful. Why? It's not hard to speak out against the war now. Thanks to Cindy Sheehan's vigil and the movement backing it up, most people are now saying "Bringing the troops home!" So I really have no use for people who won't speak out so that they can look "reasoned." Or maybe "mature."

So that's where I stand on the invasion/occupation. I've said it before, "Bring the troops home!" But it can't be said enough.

To answer another question popping up in e-mails, I am attempting to complete a new review.
and her new CD are what I'm working on right now. If I can't get something there within a week, I'll just note my thoughts here on it and move on to another album to review.

By the way, if and his hunting accident has you scratching your head, check out Wally's "THIS JUST IN! DICK CHENEY HAS A FISHING MISHAP!" at . That's it for tonight.


Brings words and photos together (easily) with
PhotoMail - it's free and works with Yahoo! Mail.

Posted by at

Blog Spotlight: Elaine on Kevin and Monica Benderman

Elaine is always putting down her posts and asking that we highlight some other site instead. However, we've found the trick to win her agreement -- point out that she's written about the Bendermans and how the word needs to get out on them. Say that to Elaine and you get a "Well . . . fine." Elaine's a wonderful blogger and you should check out Like Maria Said Paz.

Reality check via Monica Benderman

Christian Peace Group Charged Over Gitmo Vigil (Democracy Now!):
Meanwhile, the US government has served legal papers to seven members of a US Christian group that held a vigil outside the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The group, Witness Against Torture, held a five-day march to the prison in December. Around 500 prisoners are being held at Guantanamo, most without charge. The seven members each face up to 10 years in prison or a $250,000 dollar fine. Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights said: "I find it extremely hypocritical that Washington is investigating this group for the 'crime' of traveling to Cuba. The U.S. government is flagrantly violating even the most basic norms of human rights -- such as indefinite detention without charges, denial of fair trials and, most importantly, torture."

C.I. noted this today and noted the sense of outrage many of us are feeling. Sunny (my assistant and friend) asked me about that today. I'd just finished a session and she said something along the lines of "You have to read this!" but there wasn't time until lunch. You should also check Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess, Ava and C.I.'s "A note to our readers." Guantanamo Bay was one of the issues C.I. raised and if you're confused about the "outrage" many of us are feeling, think about the fact that Gitmo began a holding pen for suspects in January 2002. It's now February 2006. Four years later.
Following the attack on Pearl Harbor, 1941, we interned Japanese-Americans beginning in 1942. It was shameful. As I'm remembering my history, we began releasing large numbers in 1994 and in January of 1945, we ended the program officially. (The camps stayed open for those still trying to figure out where to go -- people lost their homes. They were pulled from their lives and homes for the "crime" of their heritage.) That's shameful and embarrassing to our history. The fact that it was "only" three years makes it no less tragic. But in the case of our current shame, we've already surpassed the three year mark. Do we learn nothing from history?
For those who've forgotten, our government's response to concerns has been that everyone's being treated fairly and if you don't believe it, check it out. The seven facing legal charges did just that.

Are they going to indict Bully Boy? He "incited" any action:

""You're welcome to go down yourselves ... and tak[e] a look at the conditions," Bush said."

So that's part of the outrage. Another part, an important component, is that this issue isn't being taken seriously in the corporate/mainstream/generic media. In ten years, when we're all disgusted by this section of our history and looking back, it needs to be noted that the mainstream media didn't cover this. Every month or so they might do something noting the administration's position. They didn't note the protest that led to legal charges. They never left the "safe" area. It's been four years now, at what point do they get real?

You think this is "esoteric"? It's very real to the people being "detained" who've not had a day in court but are "prisoners" no matter how often the mild term "detainee" is used. It's not just Guantanamo. Note the next item.

Report: US Aiding Construction of Morocoo Prison (Democracy Now!):
In other news, the London Times is reporting the US is helping Morocco build a new prison for terror suspects near the capital of Rabat. The prison would be run by the Moroccan secret police, the Direction for Security of the Territory -- known as DST. Several human rights groups have accused the DST of torture. Morocco is thought to be one of the key partners in the CIA’s rendition of detainees.


Short of repeating myself (and screaming inside my head), I have nothing to add to that.

So instead of banging my head against the same wall twice in one night, I'll note another topic.
I always assume every reader who reads this site is coming here via one of the community sites and that we're all on the same page. However, a reader wondered why I take Saturday and Sunday off?

I don't know that I truly do. Most Saturday nights/early Sunday mornings, I'm am helping out with The Third Estate Sunday Review. I see that site as an online magazine, if you're new to it. This weekend, I offered input of same form (I doubt it was "huge" or "helpful" input) on the following pieces:

Editorial: What Are They Saying, What Do They Mean?
It's all White
On playing the fear card
Cowardly Journalism Review (Parody)

I had no input on TV Review: On the lack of layers" which was written by Ava and C.I. who write all the TV pieces for The Third Estate Sunday Review -- and they do an incredible job on them. So I am participating on some level on the weekends, just not at this site.

The reader who wrote in pointed out that I am taking Thursdays off. That is true. But I'm not taking Thursdays off to kick back and relax. I'm working on Thursday evenings. Bless C.I. who will compose an entry no matter what -- on the road, at home, in an airport lobby, you name it -- but I'm not that dedicated or devoted and I have no trouble setting clear boundaries on what I will give and what I won't give in terms of online contributions.

Again, bless C.I., The Common Ills is an incredible site and the community that's sprung up around it, of which I am a member, is amazing. But I don't think lightening strikes repeatedly and I also don't think I have C.I.'s gifts. I think I have enough in me to do what you see online and that's about all.

This all started when I filled in for Rebecca at her site Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude when she needed some time off. I was happy to do that. I was nervous as hell and on the phone with C.I. from the first entry. But I did what I did, good or bad, and during that time also started helping out with The Third Estate Sunday Review, which Rebecca does so I was filling in there as well.

I didn't know how long I'd be substituting and I believe it came to five or six weeks. I don't believe I did anything "ground breaking" or even mildly amusing during that time. I'm proud that I was able to alert some people to the case of Kevin Benderman. But Rebecca's readers and community members were very supportive and gave me motivation and encouragement for which I'm very thankful. A number of them, though eager for Rebecca to return, didn't want me to just skip off into the sunset. Mike didn't either and he led the write-in campaign to request that I start my own site.

I don't know what I'm doing to this day. I'm always suprised when an e-mail comes in from a visiter who's never heard of any of the community sites but still stumbles across this site. In my offline life, I'm busy like most people are. Besides my work, I also do volunteer work with a group of young females. In addition to that, I enjoy spending time with my friends and dating. Now C.I. can go days with little to no sleep but I can't. For those who may be wondering, it was that way in college as well -- C.I. being able to go without sleep. I tried to keep up back then for a week by ingesting large doses of No Doze and it wasn't pretty. (C.I. is a natural insomniac and doesn't need to ingest anything to stay awake.)

So this is pretty much what I can manage. The process, such as it is, involves Mike and I talking on the phone at some point during the day before we do our entries. We go over the headlines from the day's Democracy Now! and choose two that we agree should be noted, then we write about that. Why Democracy Now!? Mike loves the show.

I started to type "seriously" but that actually is the reason. I love it as well. It's rare that I'm able to listen to a full episode. But I do attempt to each day at lunch. They do wonderful work and deserve massive attention for what they do. So we both note them at our sites. Maybe someone sees something here and thinks, "I should check it out"? Maybe someone is just aware it's out there? (Most people coming here are aware of the program and were before I started my site. The community promotes Democracy Now! heavily because we believe in un-embedded media.) Or, if nothing else, the links help its rank online?

Remember to visit Mikey Likes It! for Mike's take. I think that if we're both having bad days (which we do), the two of us combined may actually make a single point. Hopefully, most days we do more than that. Three e-mails have noted my "boyfriend" Mike. Either assuming because we work on our sites together, we must be a couple or that I'm the female Woody Allen? Mike has a girlfriend. Her name is Nina and she's smart, sweet and attractive. I'm many years older than college student Mike. Thanks for the vote of confidence; however, we are just friends.

Mike also has a mother. He has a father as well; however, Trina has her own site, Trina's Kitchen, and I'd urge everyone to visit it. It's a once a week site. Trina will offer some of her opinions on the week's events and share a recipe. Trina is a wonderful person. Mike's father as well. I got to know them when we all went to DC for the September peace rallies and march. When Trina learned that I was spending Thanksgiving with C.I. (as I frequently do), she made a point to invite me to spend Christmas with her family. She, Mike, the whole family are wonderful.

If you're new to this site and are wondering, "What about your own family?" My family consisted of my parents and my brother. My parents died when I was young and my brother, who was 18 when our parents died, took on the task of raising me. We are very close but, having made his money in the financial industry, he spends most of his time in Europe. (He visits frequently but holidays aren't "our thing." Apart we can get through them, together we both go into dark moods -- thinking of our parents.) For those who are new, I met C.I. through my brother and C.I. met Rebecca through me. We go back many years. (Rebecca would say "too many years.")

So hopefully that clears up any confusion.

"Vigil for solider draws two sides: Veteran serving time for refusing to deploy" (Katherine Tam, The Olympian):
About two dozen activists, including eight from Olympia, called Saturday for the release of a soldier imprisoned here for refusing to deploy to Iraq a second time.
The activists held a banner that read "Free Kevin Benderman from Fort Lewis Brig" over the Interstate 5 overpass at DuPont near the military installation while drivers honked from below.
"He served in the military very faithfully and went to Iraq," said Wally Cuddeford, who was in the Navy for a year and a half. "The military, instead of honoring the service he has given to his country, is locking him up."
Benderman was deployed to Iraq from March to September 2003. He filed for conscientious objector status in late 2004; his application was denied. Conscientious objectors are morally opposed to war.
Benderman was to leave for Iraq again in January 2005, but he refused. He was charged with desertion and intentionally missing movement for not boarding the plane for Iraq when his unit left. He was found guilty of the second, lesser charge and sentenced last summer to 15 months in prison. He is serving that sentence at Fort Lewis.
Many activists at Saturday's vigil said they have never met Benderman, but they support his right to be a conscientious objector. The group included veterans and those who have never been in war all from Seattle, Olympia and Tacoma.

Again, Kevin Benderman is someone we need to be aware of. Monica Benderman is doing her damndest to make sure that he's not forgotten or overlooked and I think the least we can do is support their efforts. If you are a regular at this site, you know about them. If you don't, I'm using something from a column Monica wrote for a "reality check" tonight (instead of a peace quote).



"Reality Check" (Monica Benderman, "How to Stop a War," Common Dreams):
Three years ago we were spending time together, every moment we could, building the type of relationship we would need to survive the unknown we were about to face.
It was our choice -- going to war. Based on the information we had, and knowing that we don't take our commitments lightly, we knew that we would face this duty to country together -- the commitment we had made. Kevin to defend the constitution, the country and all that it represented as a volunteer in the US Army, and me as the one who would take care of everything that was ours while he was away.
Iraq happened.
Can you truly understand what it feels like to watch in the darkness as your husband, loaded with weapons, chemical antidotes and somber anticipation, boards a bus to an airfield where he will board a plane that will take him to war? For those of you who have never been there -- please don't say you understand. You never will.
The feeling of helplessness can be overwhelming -- but you have to be strong when you realize that as much as the motive seems to be a duty to country, what it comes down to is that your husband will do anything to keep you safe -- so the country benefits from the love you share.
The months of finding creative ways to take care of this man who has volunteered to deprive himself of everything that home and our way of life gives us simply because he has enough love in his heart to want to keep what he cares about safe, are months you live on the edge, but also with a strength that can only come from that love, and from a greater being who does understand. Who gives you what you need because it is the love that this greater being respects, and the support that the love gives for standing by someone who has made the choice to live by what they believe.
War is wrong. Taking the life of another simply because their choices are different from yours, is never right. But believing in something based on the knowledge you have is not wrong, and standing beside someone you love because you support their commitment to what they believe, will never be wrong.












Posted by at
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License.
 
Poll1 { display:none; }