Roundtable

Jim: We didn't realize it, but it's time for another roundtable and participating are The Third Estate Sunday Review's Dona, Jess, Ty, Ava and, me, Jim; Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude;Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills);Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man; C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review; Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix; Mike of Mikey Likes It!; Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz; and Wally of The Daily Jot. In Friday's snapshot, C.I. noted: "Portland IMC has audio of Dennis Kyne and Darrell Anderson speaking about Camp Resistance." A text version of many points Anderson makes can be found in Hal Bernton's "Upcoming Watada trial drew Army deserter to Northwest" from The Seattle Times. We're not going to summarize the entire speech for, if you're interested read Bernton or, better, listen to the audio if that's an option for you. The focus of this roundtable, as we start off, is peace and war. It will no doubt expand as we move along.

Mike: I'll leap in and note that the audio is like an hour. We're not summarzing it. We're picking up on points. I'll give an overview just by noting that Anderson's speaking of his own feelings about the illegal war, some of what he saw in the war, and . . . I'll call them "problems."

Cedric: I would call them "problems" or "issues" as well.

Jess: We all support Darrell Anderson and there's a huge pause right now so I'm leaping in. We actually played some parts of this speech, Ava, C.I. and me, to a high school class in Florida on Friday. We got their input and there were things that bothered them. I know C.I.'s going to wait to speak until others have, it's also what happened when we were speaking with the students. So I'll kick things off by noting that Anderson expressed the belief that too much time was something by grieving mothers. I say 'something' because I honestly do not think Anderson knew what he was talking about. C.I. can word that in a nicer way and offer an explanation but that comment outraged students and I'll note that right at the start.

Rebecca: I'll wade in. Anderson spoke of admiration for Cindy Sheehan on the one hand and then expressed that statement that too much attention was going to grieving mothers. I don't know what attention he's speaking of. He's on the road, he's not following media. He appears to be under the mistaken belief that mothers opposed to the war who had lost a son or a daughter in the illegal war were being invited to sit down with Tim Russert and "Meet the press." I found the statement weak and offensive. Weak in that it had no basis in reality and offensive in that he's attempting to put war resisters out front.

C.I.: I am going to have step in sooner than I thought. I'm not trying to cut off the discussion but I know Elaine had wanted to address this topic and will probably take a pass because many of her patients are returning vets.

Dona: Whom she treats pro bono.

C.I.: Yes, let's note that. It's worth noting. Darrell Anderson is trying to find his way back, his road. He is a young man, he is suffering from PTSD and he's speaking from his heart at this moment in time. That's not to say I agree with all of his observations but I do want that noted up front before we go any further. I jumped in on Rebecca, so I'll toss back to her.

Rebecca: Okay, that's noted and you can come back in later and offer the explanation on that. But the reality is women don't deserve that. Mothers don't deserve that. And fathers have also lost children and are speaking out against the war. I know where it's coming from. It's coming from a lack of attention. Please, I'd see that kind of lashing out from clients all the time when I was still in the p.r. biz. They'd be so offended that ___ got this or that accolade. With Anderson, I would do the same thing I did with those clients which is to ask, "What have you done?" That's not minimizing his anti-war stance. That's not minimizing his actions since. But you have to be out there with the press, you have to constantly put yourself out there. You have to do that interview with the reporter you hate, the one that you know probably won't even get aired or printed but will smooth things over for the next time they interview you. You have to be at the ready when a phone call comes in for a call. I'm talking about the mainstream press here, I did no work with indendent press. Now we can, and assume will, get to the issue of the independent media, but let's be really clear that I've seen nothing but talking to reporters who have already covered the issue. Bernton is the perfect example. They aren't doing p.r. They aren't getting the word out. If you're unhappy with the lack of mainstream press, more often than not, the problem is with you. You can be unhappy with the way the press turned out and many get victimized by it, I'm not denying that. But if you are any kind of a name that hasn't been run out of respectable society, you can get attention if you are worked very hard. That means non-stop phone calls. Anderson, for instance, might not get a write up focusing on his feelings about the war. The reporter might not be interested in that. But, and this is especially true state-side, if a reporter knows he can call Anderson and say, "___ just happened in Tikrit, what can you tell about that?" then Anderson's name gets shared with other reporters. I had a client whose career was in decline once and, while it had risen, he'd treated every reporter like shit. It was no surprise they'd take out their revenge as he was in decline. He came to me at that point. I told him what we needed to do, how we were going to turn it around. It was an in depth plan requiring a lot of work on his part. It would be like selling him to the public all over again but, because he was a name, it would be easier than breaking an unknown. He was all for it for about a week and then started whining. I told him, we are looking at six weeks where you are putting yourself out there and putting yourself out with no expectations of anything coming from it. You're going to run your ass off at the end of that period, we're going to start seeing some positive press. By staying on his case, and doing the work on my end, he got through that six weeks period and, right at the end of it, got a cover. His face on the cover. And suddenly he was done. It had worked! That's what he thought. I told him it hadn't worked in the long term and we needed to go into phase two. He didn't have the energy for it and I told him I'd taken him as far as I could. This is obviously a performer and when I was out in California. But that one cover, that's all he got. No big publications followed up because he wasn't willing to. He saw that cover and thought "I'm back!" but he wasn't. P.R. may have a party atmosphere but it very hard work. I don't expect Darrell Anderson to know that. I do expect that someone would have explained it to him. If they haven't, and I like Anderson, I think he's attractive man and that's always a bonus when you're dealing with visual press like TV or someone doing a layout, let me explain it: You have to work. You have to work like crazy and you have to work over and over to get mainstream coverage.

Dona: I . . . I'm going to ask the obvious, what grieving mothers does he think end up covered? He pointed out that he wasn't speaking of Cindy Sheehan. Who does that leave? Nadia McCaffrey gets covered in California and I'm sure she's done all the things Rebecca's talking about in terms of returning calls when some reporter has a question. I also know that she's the one who broke the ban on photography. She allowed her son's coffin to be photographed. She's done many things since. But, she doesn't get the press she deserves and, outside of California, I don't see her receiving much press. On KPFA, after Bully Boy's speech, she was 'interviewed.' "Interviewed" because she wasn't. She was hustled off. Larry Bensky introduced her and knew nothing about her son. I know Kat loves Bensky but I think that needs to be noted. He introduces her as someone whose son died of "friendly fire." Did anyone do prep for that? Months and months ago, over a half a year, the military had admitted what was already known and what Nadia had already spoken of in the press, he was killed, intentionally, by Iraqis he was training. Now she attempted to nicely correct him and he got dismissive. He also had no more use for her. I don't know if he thought "Crazy woman thinks there was a cover up on her son's death!" I don't know what he thought but it was useless and, when later on, after he's hustled her off, he's talking some 'expert' about what more US troops training Iraqis will mean, I'm sorry Larry Bensky, the person who could answer that question was Nadia.

Kat: You didn't offend me. He's not perfect. I like Larry Bensky. But I agree that was a jaw dropping moment. I assumed that C.I.'s noting the Democracy Now! story from months ago about the military admitting it, noting that the next morning, was a corrective on the way Bensky's interview played out. But, Dona's larger point, grieving mothers are not being covered. And I'm sorry but Anderson sounded like a macho bullshit pig when he was sitting there whining, and it was a whine, I listened, that mothers are getting attention.

Betty: Well, and C.I., you can jump in in the middle of any of my points, feel free. I was reminded of my oldest son. He's the first to do this, he's the first to do that. He will tell you that. Now other people have swum, ridden bicycles and much more long before he was born. And that's what I kept coming back to, in my mind, when I was listening to Darrell Anderson. My oldest son wants applause when he does something and he should get it. So should Anderson. Listening to the speech, I could hear my son when things are crazy and he hasn't gotten recognized for something he should have been recognized for or hasn't received the amount of attention his actions should have produced. And he will, and he does, turn that into I gave my daughter or my other son this or that attention. Just last week, I was having to slowly explain to him that losing a tooth, at her age, is a big deal. No, it's not a big deal for him anymore, for her it is.

Ava: Betty, if you've got more to add, you should. Betty's voice was shaking on that and I think she's afraid she's said something that's going to result in a disagreement. It's not going to, that was discussed with the students when we were all listening.

Betty: Was it? Because that's what I felt. Anderson wants attention. He should have attention. He deserves attention. But he does not need to make comments about grieving mothers like that. And someone does need to explain, like Rebecca pointed out, grieving mothers do not get that much coverage to begin with. Griveing mothers are not preventing him from receiving attention. His own efforts with the press may be but I'm more inclined to believe that what's hurting there is the total lack of concern about the war on the part of media, big and small.

Cedric: I would agree with that point. No one's getting that much coverage from the media. The war gets very little from independent media and, as non-stop columns and e-mail alerts repeatedly point out, the same voices invited to the discussion by big media are the ones who cheerleaded it. He sounded like a nice guy and I agree with C.I. that we're talking about someone who's finding their way and trying to make sense of things. But someone does need to correct him real quick that the media's not covering the peace movement. Big or small, it's not covering it.

Ty: And to address Cindy Sheehan, who Anderson said he admired, she's broken through because of her history. She was plugging away trying to get traction long before Camp Casey. That was an inspired idea and the first thing that started happening at Camp Casey was that friends and activists were brought in to deal with the press. I think that, more than anything else, backs up Rebecca's point. Cindy Sheehan would have been a two day story tops for the media if people hadn't come along to say, "We're going to deal with the press." It is too much for one person to do. Someone directs a movie and a studio promotes it. The director make take part in that but the studio is the one focusing on selling it and setting up ads, press and all the rest. Listening to that section, and I agreed with many sections of his speech, I didn't with that, I thought, "He has no idea." And he doesn't. In my internship, that was the thing I heard over and over, "Who are we targeting? How are we reaching them?" There's no reason he should grasp that and, the way media treats the peace movement, it might not even matter if he did. I'm going to use Military Families Speak Out as an example. They get ignored more often than not, by media big and small, but they put out press releases. They issue those. And on them, they have contact info. Call so and so for interviews. That sort of thing. So if he wants some advice, that's what it is. That's for most war resisters. Obviously, with the law trying to hunt down Kyle Snyder, he can't do that. But Anderson's been set free by the military. There's nothing preventing him from providing contact info or from issuing press releases. He can set up his own site on Blogspot. It would get noticed. I know it would be noted in the snapshot. As it is, he left after his discharge with the announcement that he was going to a ranch for treatment on PTSD. People may not even know he's on the road now if they followed that. And let me be really clear on this, until the snapshot started noting Camp Resistance, I wasn't seeing it anywhere. I know that Ava and C.I. have been screaming at friends in big media to cover it. They shouldn't be learning about it from Ava and C.I. Let's be to the point here, the problem with Sarah Olson community-wide --

Wally: The reporter the military asking to testify in Ehren Watada's February 5th court-martial to verify that what she reported was accurate.

Ty: Right, thanks. The problem with her is that she keeps expecting the world to come to her rescue. Maybe it's being African-American and gay, but I didn't grow up thinking anyone was coming to my rescue. In terms of big media, they are, many of them, hostile to peace coverage. But it's also true that some things are not promoted. Traveling around the country in a bus? I hope you got a cell phone and I hope you're sharing the number with the press because otherwise you might as well be in Antartica for all reporters are going to care.

Mike: I want to get back to Kat's macho bullshit comment because I do agree with that. The speech before by Dennis Kyne had people in the audience mimicking the "Yes, drill sgt. sir!" type speak of the military and I wouldn't do that. I'm curious as to why they did. Maybe he was speaking to a crowd that was ex-military but at least two of the people who asked questions weren't. I don't think we need to mimic the military at peace gatherings. I don't think we need to wear camo. Kyne talked about a friend who grew up with generations of pacificts and how that wasn't his experience. It was a good speech but the audience participation wasn't something I cared for and I will honestly boo and hiss if someone does that an event that I'm present for, starts hollering out like they are in the military.

Cedric: Right. That bothered me as well. Was it funny? Some seemed to think it was. I didn't think it was funny. I'm not going to play soldier. And I strongly disagreed with the attitude expressed by Anderson that it was time for others in the peace movement to step aside and for the war resisters to lead. First of all, I don't glorify the military. I don't set them above any other group in the society.

Betty: Hear ya! I am still so angry about the 2000 elections where, and C.I. wrote about this recently, Black votes could be ignored and uncounted in Florida for any perceived violation but every military vote, whether it met the standard or not, whether it arrived by the deadline or not, could be counted. Someone can say I'm playing the race card but there's no history in this country of the military being denied the right to vote. There is a history of Black people being denied the right to vote, it's why it was written into the Constitution, it's why we had to combat Jim Crow laws.

Elaine: Okay, I think I can speak on this aspect so I'm going to jump in. I'm not speaking on other aspects because I wasn't able to run this by vets that I counsel and I don't want to say anything even in the most general sense without first talking that over with them. But Betty's point. I know when I listened and heard the "Yes, sirs!" I was appalled as well. I think there's too much time spent hiding behind the military. The right does it. Bully Boy's done it for some time. The Clinton administration did so as well though I'm not remembering Bill Clinton himself doing that. He made the usual statements a president does but I'm not remembering him amping up the volume which means I either missed it or didn't happen. If I'd seen it on TV, I would remember it. And of course Poppy Bush did it as well. Now the way it's worked, as Betty's pointed out, has included allowing all votes in Florida from the military to count while African-Americans were denied the same right. That's a concern in a democracy because in a democracy, one group is not supposed to be set above another. There are protected classes due to historical discrimination but that aren't 'set above,' the protections exist to ensure equal opportunity despite how the right tries to play it out. But Bully Boy amped it up more than anyone. And those in the peace movement are very aware that phoney slogans and hiding behind the troops allowed the War Hawks to get their message out while voices for peace couldn't get traction. "You'll undermine the military!" That and other nonsense. No one's voice is more important than anyone else's in the peace movement. It's a movement and it's of the people. You can't come along and suddenly jump in and think you can cut in line. That's not how it works. And the idea that people in the peace movement should silence their own strong voices and move to the back is not only undemocratic, it's suicide for the peace movement. C.I.?

C.I.: I'm assuming you want me to pick up where you can't. John Kerry ran for president in 2004. The right mocked his military record and made fun of it. It was an attack. An unanswered attack and largely because Kerry stood on that record and only on that record. If they had spent time getting out his post-Vietnam record, the uninformed middle wouldn't have been going, "John Kerry said what about the troops in Vietnam?" It was a huge mistake. By the same token, the thought that the movement is going to be turned over to anyone, regardless of whom or their background, is nonsense. Every voice needs to be heard. Someone responding to Cindy Sheehan might not respond to Kyle Snyder, someone responding to Medea Benjamin might not respond to Leslie Cagan. The peace movement is a buidling movement and to be that it has to offer a wide variety of voices. War resisters are shut out of the media, big and small, with few exceptions. I want them to be heard, I argue for them to be heard, when I speak, I tell their stories. But, besides being undemocratic, the idea of turning the peace movement over to any one section of voices is suicide. For war resisters it risks the same problems that the Kerry campaign encountered. More voices, not less.

Rebecca: I'm going to jump in here because to me, it's the sort of thing, sort of the same thing, as someone deciding, "I'm going to be a blogger!" one day. Then, a few weeks later, they're not happy that other sites are better known. They're focusing on fame or leadership as opposed to getting the work done. Now excuse me, and let me put C.I. on the spot here, but you have been traveling around the country, at a mimium two weeks every month, since February 2003 speaking out against the war. You're not screaming, "I am the new leader! I must be the leader!" Darrell Anderson needs to understand that the peace movement isn't about him. If you have something to share, you share it. He was complaining about the turnout at events. This is January. He was released in October after which he spent about six weeks hanging low.
I don't know what he's expecting. I know you keep a low profile on purpose, C.I., I know you're doing it because you believe in it.

C.I.: Blah, blah, blah. Look it, the thing is that Anderson wants to end the war. He's frustrated. I think we all are. But I don't think he's got the reference to judge. Jess made that point so I'm tossing to Jess.

Jess: The high schoolers were furious at some of the comments. My point was, what is Anderson grading by when he says low turnout. Low turnout compared to what? Every thing starts somewhere. If he's expecting the 60s all over again, and many are, it needs to be pointed out that for White people, many of them, the 60s were a time of profit. There's a world of difference today. Billie sent in a thing just last week, to The Common Ills, an action in her area. She noted that she wished she could participate but she couldn't. As she explained, she's already taken off from work this month for the 3,000 mark, to protest the anniversary of Guantanamo and for a third action I forget. She's got kids. She's barely making ends meet. These are differences between then and now and they shouldn't be forgotten.

Ava: And it's also true that there were more women, not in college, who could make the peace demonstations and marches in the sixties. They were homemakers. Homemakers still exist and a few of them exist that don't also hold down a job outside of the home. But that's another area effecting the turnouts. It's equally true that today's college set is not as prosperous as those in the 60s. Forget that college is higher now, significantly higher, we're not talking about inflation, we're talking about college rates sky rocketing, and a lot of students are struggling with work and school. When people ask why retired persons are so prominent in the peace movement today it is because they have the time. I won't say the money because fixed incomes and attacks on the safety net have ensured that's not the case. But they do have the time. People today work longer hours than they did in the 60s and, in terms of real wages, for less pay. If you're comparing what's going on today with what went on in the sixties, you're making a huge mistake. And someone could, in 1969, say, "I'm skipping work and if they fire me, I'll get a new job." Jobs are much scarcer.

Jess: And that's the reality. And it's equally true that we're not coming off the civil rights movement as we oppose this war. People are not used to mass mobilization. We've got to relearn that.

Dona: Relearn the wheel, as the feminist saying goes.

Jess: Exactly. But that . . . I didn't think it was a good speech. Maybe he was speaking to vets and they were applauding him. But the students we were talking to, they didn't applaud. At one point, he's taking a swipe at iPods and cell phones. Now not every student offended by that had one, but they all wanted one. Probably the way kids in the 60s wanted a transistor radio. That is how they communicate and how they interact. Downloads are today's 45s. That's reality. And whether or not someone has an iPod has nothing to do with their level of committment.

Jim: I think his point there was that there's not enough sacrifice.

Jess: I know that but they're not giving up their cell phones and that's not seen as a luxury today. He was in Canada when the immigration rights movement took hold last spring so he may not be aware of it but text messaging played a huge part in that. Instead of telling everybody what he sees from the mountain, he should come down from the mountain and start speaking with people and not to them.

Jim: Just to clarify, I wasn't disagreeing with you, Jess.

Dona: Here's my problem with making him a leader. And let's not pretend that on some level that wasn't what the speech was really about. He speaks of going to the School for the Americas to protest last fall. How did that come about? His mother had just told him about it. He didn't even know about it. Well, not everyone knows about everything. But if you're wanting to lead you need to have information. And I'm not really sure that less than two months of knowledge about the School of Americas translates as "I am ready to lead." C.I.'s right, though, the speech was about frustration and I'll return to that in a moment. But Anderson's speech rubbed a lot of people the wrong way, there were a number of e-mails on it and C.I., Ava and Jess played it to high school students in Florida for a reaction and that was negative. I'll let C.I. wrap up the Anderson aspect but I'll note that when your speech produces that many negative responses, you are making the case for why you shouldn't be the leader.

C.I.: I bit my tongue through all of that. I'm also not disagreeing with anything anyone said. But Darrell Anderson is finding his way. He's finding his path. He does suffer from PTSD. His voice is important and needs to be heard. That's a point we are all in agreement over in case it didn't come through in all the comments. We support him. We support his stand, we hope he continues to speak out. He should be speaking at rallies and demonstrations. His voice needs to be heard, war resisters need to be heard. That said, they are not the only ones who need to be heard and it is a mistake for the peace movement to ever consider hiding behind any set of voices. The more voices, the more variety, the greater the mix, the more the message gets out there. What he is voicing is not that different than what Aiden Delgado expressed last spring. In terms of the need to be heard, at least. And it's a real shame that all these months later there is no place for them to be heard in the media. There's AP, there's a few independent media programs, there's a few reporters who actually care about covering the stories, regardless of what they think of the war, but there's no space for them, for the war resisters. Where I disagree the most strongly with Anderson is his belief that someone's taken his space, someone in the peace movement. I think it's past time the movement started calling out the silence from independent media. This Saturday, in DC, there will be a massive rally. RadioNation with Laura Flanders will be there. Who else? Or is it going to be a headline at the top of the hour on independent radio stations. The media conference they can go to. The protest? Who's going to be there? Who's going to be there covering it? In terms of Camp Resistance, since it's been noted that Ava and I "screamed" at friends in big media, let me note the response to that. After they did a little research, they'd call back and say, "You know they aren't camped out all day." They, big media, didn't see it as Camp Casey where Cindy Sheehan was there. She only left when her mother was ill. Anderson himself spoke of taking off in the middle of it, in that speech. You don't prove your dedication that way. You only give big media a reason not to cover you. Anderson wants to be a leader and he can be. That's not just "He has the ability." That's he can be a leader. He needs to figure out an action and lead on it. It's past time that there was something akin to the Winter Soldiers for this war. Get a venue in NYC or near it. Nowhere else because most of the media, including indymedia, is based there. Set up hearings. You will get coverage. It may not be the kind of coverage you want -- Fox "News" will trash you, for instance -- but you will get coverage, provided you go to NYC. That's just one idea. Darrell Anderson can probably think of a hundred more. But CODEPINK doesn't sit around saying, "We're not getting covered and that group from the peace movement is!" They do their actions and they keep doing them. They're on the move, the e-mail from Billie was about a CODEPINK action. She wanted to be there but she had taken off three days from work already this month, she's planning to go to DC for the big rally which meant putting in for this Friday off, and she just couldn't swing one more day off this month. She's supporting her family. She has a large family, the things Ava and Jess spoke of are very real differences between the "60s" and today.

Ava: Before we move on, I want to talk about Friday, at least a bit. For one thing, we weren't all over. We generally are. But a teacher who knows C.I. made the invitation for her class and C.I. asked that she check with her principal because times are different and we don't want to get anyone fired. Her principal knew my aunt and the superintendent went to school with C.I. So the reaction was, "Come but not just for her class, speak to the whole school." So that's what we did over and over on Friday, spoke with students.

Jess: And let me add, we went into the school's library because C.I. had to do the snapshot. And school's out at this point, by at least an hour and students kept coming up and C.I. kept stopping to talk. Ava and I were joking that the snapshot was never going to be done. Mike calls it's a "partial snapshot." But the reason that happened is because we did have a set limit for each group because these things are not, "Here's what we think, now there's five minutes for any questions or comments." At one point, in the middle of speaking, C.I. yawned and said, "That's a sure sign that it's time for me to shut up." Everybody here's taken part in these things and they know the drill but we all speak a little and the bulk of the time is listening. This was not mandatory. Each group had a set time and a capped maximum size because there comments and thoughts are what's important. We're used to the go to this campus, go to that campus, OH MY GOD! ARE WE GOING TO MAKE IT TO THE NEXT! type of schedule. And I was wondering what it would be like this time because we were at one school. Doing it over and over. And there might not be that many. Which would be okay because then they could share even more, those that were there. But I think the entire student body turned out. The room was always at the maxium. There were more people wanting to speak than there was time for and C.I. had a great line at the end where it was, "Okay, you take this conversation to your family and friends." But even so, some students didn't get their chance to speak and when they heard we were in the library, they started leaving the bus lines and coming in. And they wanted to share their thoughts on the war, on how to end it, all of that. Not just during a time when they could cut a class by showing up, but on their own time. We ended up doing one more round. C.I. finally gave up on the snapshot and closed the laptop and we all circled up and there must have been fifty high schoolers in there, by that time it was over an hour and half after school had ended. On a Friday. So I want to be really clear that this nonsense about "apathy" is coming from people who are making no efforts to speak to any students. It's not true of colleges, it's not true of high schools and Friday really brought that home.

Ava: I would agree with that and I would also praise the set up for that. Like Jess said, it's not, "We're going to speak, you're going to listen." This is a conversation and I believe Aiden Delgado was talking about the need for that, these conversations. I was the first to play tag along with C.I. on these because when we were all going to school in NY -- Dona, Jess, Jim, Ty and me -- I was frequently flying back to California for family things or just because I was bored. I wasn't concerned about a turnout because I figured if a teacher thought her students would be interested then a significant number of students would be. But like Jess pointed out, we had at least fifty students, who'd already taken part in discussions during the day, staying after school for another discussion. Giving up their own time because there were areas of the war they wanted to address. And I think the set up, the way these take place, matters tremendously. It's not, "You sit there and listen." It's very democratic, it's a conversation. I understood what Aiden Delgado was talking about last spring. But it really came home to me when this young high schooler was talking about how no one ever asked her what she thought. Now that alone was something and something powerful because she was getting that her opinion mattered. But she spoke about how her father was serving in Afghanistan and how, when he came home, they were advised by the military not to talk about war unless he brought it up. Everything she had to say, and she was one of the ones who had stayed after, she had just been sitting on and . . . I'm tearing up just thinking about what she said so let me finish this with, I don't think going somewhere, delivering your prepared speech and leaving is accomplishing anything. It has to be a conversation. I think the movement has too many speeches and too little conversations and that was Aiden Delgado's point -- which I grasped when he made it, but it was made so clear on Friday.

Jim: That's an important point and I believe Anderson brought up what he felt or saw as people avoiding the topic of war around him. That may be one reason for the avoiding. We're basically told, by military or otherwise, not to ask. Before we move on, anything else to add about Friday?

Jess: I'll say Ava's right. It has to be a conversation. Nobody needs your speech of facts and experiences. People need to talk and the media hasn't created a space for that. It's up to all of us to create that space. Hiding behind the military, pro-war or anti-war warriors, won't create that space. Anyone going anywhere to speak should make sure that they grasp the war is not about them. If they're not providing as much time for others to participate as they are for their speeches, then they're not helping.

Rebecca: Because the peace movement has carved out the space for this conversation. It wasn't done by the media. It was the peace movement, peer to peer, face to face.

Jim: This will be going up after Polly's Brew goes out so most will have already read Goldie's column, at least community members. Did you want to talk about Goldie?

Rebecca: Sure. Goldie's going to end the war. Goldie and all the other Goldie's in this country. She's a middle school student who puts most adults to shame. She and her mother, Marlene, do house parties on the war once a month. Goldie's following the news from Iraq, the news from the peace movement. She's speaking out and she's not going to be silenced. She had to give a speech on Friday for one of her classes and she gave it on Ehren Watada. She's spoken about him and other war resisters at the house parties to invited friends. But this was the first time she was speaking to a class that included at least two 'hostiles' as Goldie laughed to me on the phone the night before she gave her speech. But she did it. She was nervous for about half of it but she kept on. And one of the 'hostiltes,' not both just one, told her after that he thought Ehren Watada was getting screwed. He was all prepared, the second he heard Goldie was going to be speaking on a war resister to make fun of her and he made that very clear to her. So not only did she face that, and we're talking about a middle schooler here, she faced that down and gave her speech and, in doing so, she got one person she never expected to be at all sympathetic to Watada to actually give a damn. Give it up for Goldie.

Jim: We're all impressed with Goldie. She and her mother are going to be in DC, right?

Rebecca: Yeah. They're both very excited about that.

Jim: Okay, Dona wanted to talk about the frustrations behind Anderson's speech.

Dona: I understand that he's frustrated, who isn't? Who cares about ending the war but isn't frustrated? He's frustrated with the War Resisters Support Campaign as well and before we move on, we really need to address that.

Mike: I'd agree that needs to be addressed. He said they were only concerned with their own issues and after he decided he'd return to the United States from Canada, they wrote him off.

Elaine: Can I jump in here? I'll shut up during the rest of it but I can talk about that topic so, if no one minds, I'm going to jump in. You know what, the War Resisters Support Campaign is not the Darrell Anderson Memorial. It is an organization on a very tight budget.

Cedric: So tight that they're asking people to provide rooms for the increased number of Americans self-checking out of the military to go to Canada.

Elaine: That's right. I'm not sure but I believe Anderson was the first to announce he was returning. Is that correct, C.I.?

C.I.: Yes. Kyle Snyder and others would follow. And after what happened to Kyle Snyder, people like Corey Glass would say they weren't coming back. Kyle Snyder, for anyone confused, returned to the US and turned himself in under an agreement made with the military and when he did, they immediately backed out on their agreement and attempted to return him to his unit to redeploy to Iraq.

Elaine: Anderson was the best case the War Resisters Support Campaign had. He'd seen the war, he'd been in Iraq, he'd been awarded a Purple Heart, he was married to a Canadian citizen --

C.I.: Gail Greer.

Elaine: and we're talking about a country where the government has been hostile to war resisters compared to during Vietnam. C.I. handled that very well, noting that it takes bravery to go to Canada and it takes bravery to turn yourself in, that both were valid and one wasn't better than the other. I agree with that. But I also think you have to be aware that an organization that's fighting for war resisters in Canada isn't set up to deliver you back to the United States and, furthermore, when you are one of their best cases because your history makes you more sympathetic, your decision to return doesn't just effect you. It effects Jeremy Hinzman, Joshua Key, Patrick Hart, all the ones trying to get refugee status because you are the one who would have had the easiest time breaking down the wall of resistance. The new government is even more hostile to war resisters but it seems to be falling apart already. But when Darrell Anderson decided to return, he made the decision that was right for him. He needed to do that. At the same time, the War Resisters League has a very small budget and is attempting to help hundreds of Americans in Canada. They are not the Darrell Anderson Memorial.

Wally: You want to talk about why?

Elaine: I think I've said all I can.

Wally: Okay, then I'll grab it. Taking money from an organization that attempts to help war resisters set up residence in Canada and then trashing the organization because they weren't as helpful to you after you decided to go back to the United States . . . You can change your mind. Anyone can. But the reality is that organization, disclosure, my grandfather has donated to them, is set up for a purpose. It's as though you had received a college grant and then decided to drop out. If you decided to drop out, that was your decision. You don't then criticize the organization that gave you a grant for college but wasn't able to help you after you dropped out of college.. Elaine is right and I agree with her 100%. It's not the Darrell Anderson Memorial and to make snarky comments about how they had their own issues and agendas is just embarrassing coming from someone who sought their help. Their funds need to go war resisters trying to get refugee status in Canada. That's why they exist. The minute Anderson changed his mind, their money needed to go towards helping those still trying for refugee status.

Cedric: I'm glad Mike brought that up because that was one of the things that bothered me most. That and what was an attack on woman, because the "grieving mothers" bit was an attack. Those women weren't as 'serious' or 'important' as people like him who had seen battle was the way that argument went. Now what we're talking about now, I like Darrell Anderson but that was a snarky remark, like Wally said. And it's why Darrell Anderson needs to share but he doesn't need to lead. He's got issues he needs to work on and that's true of everyone returning from Iraq. And that's why you don't turn the movement over to them.

Jim: Okay. Betty had asked for something to be brought up. It's peace then, peace now, I'm guessing. But there's a new book on Jane Fonda entitled Jane Fonda's War by Mary Hershberger that Betty doesn't care for.

C.I.: I'm sorry, Betty.

Betty: No, I loved reading most of it. C.I. gave me a copy, I think most of us got a copy. Right?

Rebecca: Right. And I think I know what you're going to talk about. I've avoided noting the book at my site for that reason. I do enjoy the book of speeches and intend to note that. The speeches were collected and edited by Hershberger as well.

Betty: This is about the media. It's about the government. It's about a war on peace. Which is why I'm bringing it up. There's a section in the book that has no relation to reality and I know Dona's warning about time so what I'd like to do, if that's okay, is read the section that infurated me and have C.I. rebutt line by line. Is that okay?

Jim: Fine by me. C.I.?

C.I.: Sure.

Betty: This begins on page 52 and continues through page 53. The discussion is about how J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI attempted to smear those speaking out. This section focuses on Jean Seberg and C.I. has brought that up in roundtables and written of it at The Common Ills. What the woman presents in this book is not reality. Jean Seberg is pregnant, she's an actress famous for Breathless, among other films. She is publicly with Romain Gary. Both are White. The decision is made to discredit her. The FBI decides they will discredit her by stating that she's carrying the baby of a Black Panther which is supposed to send shock waves through the still racist America. Richard Wallace Held is the FBI agent Hershberger identifies as participating.

C.I.: But there were more.

Betty: Right. So he prepares a letter with a phony signature that won't be traced back to the FBI, the book tells you. "Held heeded the order and then sent his letter to Hollywood gossip columnist Joyce Harber under a false name, purporting to be a friend of Seberg's." C.I.?

C.I.: If Hershberger knows what really happened, that is a lie. More likely she's bought into the attempts to lynch Harber which allowed others to go scott free. Harber was not sent the letter. Okay, I'm taking a breath. Just to explain the importance of this, what will be done to Seberg destroys her. She will never recover from it. She will suffer under the stress and she will eventually kill herself. This isn't something to be tossed out or something to write about when you don't know your facts. I'll assume Hershberger doesn't know her facts. That sentence alone contains a huge inaccuracy. Harber was not sent the letter. She was given it. She was given it by Bill Thomas, then the city editor of The Los Angeles Times, and he wrote at the top of the letter something like, "Joyce, I don't know if you care, but this comes from a reliable source." Joyce Harber was not sent the letter. She didn't do a blind item, but I'm getting ahead, on some letter she was sent. An editor at the paper passed it on and vouched for it. That was Bill Thomas. Bill Thomas publicly admitted to that. He had to because the letter was in Harber's files and anyone could see Thomas' note that he'd scribbled on it. When he admitted to it he denied remembering anything about it. Bill Thomas was up to his neck in that. He also, just FYI, was the person who fired Joyce Harber from the paper.

Betty: "She didn't name Jean Seberg, calling her "Miss A," but she printed unique details of Seberg's life and career that made the identity of 'Miss A' obvious."

C.I.: Well the item could have described several. That's what a blind item is. The musical in the item is probably the biggest clue but many could have read it and thought, for instance, "Jane Fonda" and just assumed she'd signed to do a musical and they didn't know about it.

Betty: I'm going to hurry this along. "Newspapers and magazines around the country picked up the story, and an emotionally fragile Seberg attempted suicide. Doctors tried to save her baby's life by performaing a ceasearn section, but the baby lived only two days."

C.I.: There are so many lies in that I don't know where to start. Harber wrote for The LA Times. Her column was also syndicated. Those who carried her syndicated column picked it up as they normally did. It did not cause anything like what that woman describes in her book. Rebecca told me not to read that because she knows how I am about Seberg. Not to read the book. I'm glad I didn't. Is Flyboy listening?

Rebecca: Yes. Why?

C.I.: See if he'll speak for a minute.

Flyboy: Sure. What's up?

C.I.: I've talked in roundtables about this and written about it at The Common Ills. Betty knows and everyone else knows what happened. I'm thinking you may not.

Flyboy: Not really. Just what Betty was reading and Rebecca telling me, "Oh my God, C.I. is going to be furious." That was when she was reading the book.

C.I.: You heard what Betty read. Could you tell me the events as the author portrays them?

Flyboy: A gossip columinist at an LA paper writes that Jean Seberg is pregnant by a Black Panther. Jean Seberg tries to kill herself. The baby dies.

C.I.: Thank you. That is such a fucking lie -- and I just told one member last week I'd try to watch my own language in these editions. I do not take kindly to anyone lying about Jean Seberg. Rebecca said skip the book or you'll be pissed. Jean Seberg went into the hospital in August. The trauma at that time was Newsweek, not The Los Angeles Times. When the Harber blind item ran it was May of 1970.

Betty: May 19, 1970 according to the endnote.

C.I.: Thank you. Sebergs ends up in the hospital in August, after Seberg o.d.ed on sleeping pills, which was not thought by all to be a suicide attempt, she was taken to the hospital. While she was in the hospital, Edward Behr wrote up a bit on her for Newsweek. He maintained that he included the 'news' that the baby's father was a Black Panther in his cable to Newsweek's NY headquarters because he was just trying to prove he was 'on' the story and in the know but it wasn't for publication. In the cable he does mark that "Strictly FYI". That ends up running in Newsweek. Kermit Lasner will offer the laughable excuse that he had no idea how that piece of shit made it into the magazine because he'd had a scooter accident at lunch. Newseek printed, August 24th issue, 1970, that, this is a quote, I damn well know what they printed: "She and French author Romain Gary, 56, are reportedly about to remarry even though the baby Jean expects in Ocotober is by another man -- a black activist she met in California." That's what got picked up everywhere, including in The Des Moines Register, Seberg's hometown paper. Now that book is supposed to utilize government documents and the FBI had Seberg's phones tapped, including her hospital phone, so they knew very well that her state of mind was frantic after Newsweek published the item. She lost the baby because of the Newsweek article. I question everything that Betty quoted including the timeline. Newsweek printed it, it got picked up everywhere, Jean Seberg lost her baby, and Romain Gary was quite clear whom he blamed when he wrote "The Big Knife" which was published in France-Soir. This was a very huge thing, in press on both sides of the Atlantic. It's still a huge deal to many and one of the main reasons I never link to the piece of crap Newsweek.

Betty: I knew it was wrong. We've discussed this and it's addressed in "Spying and Seberg" but I had to wonder how an author gets it that wrong? Maybe because it's a little easier to go after a dead gossip columnist than it is to go after Newsweek?

C.I.: To be honest with you, that's exactly where I went as well. Joyce Harber was scapegoated for that thing which she never would have read if the city editor hadn't vouched for it. Bill Thomas got off scott free. But what Harber did was a bit of gossip. In a blind item. Newsweek, not a gossip publication, printed a lie in their magazine and that set off a wave outside of any gossip community. They knew what would happen when they did that, both to Seberg and in terms of being echoed throughout the press. That was nothing but corporate media going after a peace activist. It's exactly the kind of crap they've always done and for an author of a book published by The Free Press to either not know or to avoid telling readers the actual truth is just disgusting. It's the August 24, 1970 issue of Newsweek. Anyone who doubts it can get their ass to a libary and utilize the reels or microfiche.

Dona: I just want to note that this wasn't true, it was something created by the FBI, and, therefore, it needs to be asked how a Newsweek reporter in France got hold of the information?
So now we're on the topic of the media. Okay, everyone, we're taking a break. C.I. just walked off in disgust.

Jim: And we're back. Before we move on, do you want to add anything C.I.?

C.I.: Just that if you feel the press led to the death of Seberg's child, I do, and that it was a government plot, which has been established and someone needing a source can comb through Richard Cohen's columns, he's written very strongly about it, after the FBI records became public, at The Washington Post, you name the people involved. This is the sort of cowardice we see too much of it, if it's not ignorance, a refusal to go after the big targets because you're scared. It makes my blood boil. Betty's right, it's really easy to go after a gossip columnist. It's a lot more difficult to go after Newsweek for some. But the reality is that it was Newsweek in August, not Harber in May that printed the lie and printed Jean Seberg's name by it. It was a government plot against Seberg and running to hide behind gossip columnists sure does allow Newsweek breathing room. When the government decides to destroy someone and when you can prove that it was a plot to destroy her, carried out by the FBI, with J. Edgar Hoover's approval, you tell the truth about it. You don't write, "OH MY GOD! JOYCE HARBER RAN A BLIND ITEM AND IT DESTROYED JEAN SEBERG!" The blind item worried her. Newsweek destroyed her. There's a difference.

Mike: A big difference. Like chasing after the ghost of Judith Miller while Michael Gordon continues to sell the war. It's easy, no one's going to challenge you, and, to the uninformed, it looks like you've done some work.

Ty: Lot of people trying to look like they're doing work when they aren't and we've got a thing on that for this edition so, to get to Dona's point, the thing is Darrell Anderson wants more attention and we agree he and other war resisters deserve more attention. Where we disagree is that anyone, "grieving mothers" or not, in the peace movement are getting any attention.

Cedric: I want to address the vigils. I can't remember if he mentioned the candle light vigils. I know Matthew Rothschild did. But the thing is, those are moments of honoring the dead. Those aren't protests or demonstrations.

Betty: And that's what adults do, they don't close their eyes and act like it didn't happen. Andrea Lewis did an interview with Media Benjamin about how she and others were stopped on the Golden Gate Bridge by the San Francisco police and told that they were not allowed to cross it and, basically, that they were on private property. Medea Benjamin was not presenting the action as a way to end the war. But adults do note the dead and when we stop doing that, our society will be in a lot of trouble.

Kat: That was on KPFA's The Morning Show. And before Darrell Anderson wants to think Medea Benjamin stole his moment, she is big in the Bay Area, this is her stomping ground and we love her. I didn't see 20/20 interviewing her. I didn't see her on the cover of People magazine. She was on because of an action, a local action. She didn't make WBAI as far as I know and I know she didn't get invited on Democracy Now! to discuss it. In the Bay Area, we care about peace. When Bob Watada was speaking out, Philip Maldari interviewed him and this was long before there was a moment of interest in Carolyn Ho. They're both Ehren Watada's parents.

Dona: Which is the point I wanted to get to. And thank God for KPFA, let me say that. It is so nice to have KPFA to listen to. We used to listen to WBAI and it has some strong programs but it also has some programs I have no use for. And when Mike slammed their evening news, I actually thought he was too kind. Ava, Jess and C.I. were asking me, while they were on the road last week, when they'd call, the first thing they'd ask was, "What did we miss?" Meaning what had KPFA covered? That said, this now local listener wants to know when KPFA is going to do a program on Iraq. I don't care if it's a weekly show or not. I'd love a daily show. But I think the schedule can make time for at least one hour a week devoted to Iraq. I give them credit for covering Iraq. As well as other topics. Which is all said in my lead in to: What The Hell Is Wrong With The Nation?

Cedric: You said a mouthful in those eight words. Did anyone read Trina's post? She and Mike's dad have decided no more Nations in there house. And can you blame them?

Betty: No. Trina read that to me over the phone. She'd called to find out about my post and I explained I was waiting for C.I.'s plane to land so I could try it out before posting. So she read her post to me over the phone and I told her I thought it said everything that needed to be said.

Ty: I think we're all tired of it. And we had 16 e-mails complaining about a column and saying we'd better address it. In the Januray 22nd edition of the magazine, as Melissa e-mailed, "Katha Pollitt finally discovers Iraq." Melissa and the others are complaining about "Happy New Year!" which includes this statement: "Be honest. Withdrawing from Iraq may be the right thing to do, but it won't mean peace, at least not for Iraqis."

Kat: Who needs to be honest, Pollitt? Why not your damn magazine? Anthony Arnove and Howard Zinn were just discussing the realities two weeks ago on KPFA. Where the fuck was The Nation? Or is your one sentence supposed to pass for addressing realities? That useless rag is out of my home as well. If they want back in, they'll need to develop a backbone and start covering the things that matter. Darrell Anderson, your problem isn't with grieving mothers, it's with a bullshit independent media that won't cover war resisters and you can start with The Nation. Pollitt needs to identify whom she thinks needs to "Be Honest" because no sane person believes troops come home and Iraq's a bed of roses. As Ruth pointed out, that sort of lie is the exact same thing Pat Buchanan resorted to on The McLaughin Group.

Elaine: Well maybe she's ticked off by a recent letter to the editor. Dallas has checked to see if was run. It wasn't. It was sent to The Nation by community member Martha on December 22, 2006:

Reading Katha Pollitt's "Ho-Ho-Holiday Donations -- 2006" two questions arose
1) Ms. Pollitt refers to In These Times as The Nation's "sister publication." In light of concerns regarding media consolidation, that phrase needs to be explained.
2) Looking through the ten recommended organizations and publications, I see Hurricane Katrina, I see Vietnam, et al. I don't see Iraq. Is Ms. Pollitt aware that a war is going on? MADRE, an organization recently recommended on RadioNation with Laura Flanders, seems much more fitting than a periodical (two make Ms. Pollitt's list). In addition, there are numerous organizations working for peace and supporting C.O.s.
If Ms. Pollitt is unaware that a war is going on in Iraq, that might explain why she has never written one word about the rape and murder of fourteen-year-old Abeer Qassim Hamza al-Janabi -- a topic that strikes me as much more important than Hillary Clinton being 'bird-dogged."

Elaine (con't): C.I.?

C.I.: Dallas says it's not in any of the two issues that subscribers have still not received. But Martha is a valued member. She volunteered that for the gina & krista round-robin and I told her we'd note it as well if it wasn't published. Martha's remarks are correct and to the point. A war is going on and when Pollitt makes her slam, at whom I don't know, that some think US troops leaving Iraq means instant peace, well, it's nice that she could finally mention Iraq.

Mike: And The Nation itself?

C.I.: I'm not commenting on your entry, Mike.

Mike: I didn't think so, but the magazine itself?

C.I.: It's made itself useless. And the circulation that was falling took a deep hit with the slam on the 9-11 truth movement. I know that The Progressive also suffered fall out over their article. I'm told CounterPunch didn't and I would say that goes to what we discussed before. Alexander Cockburn is fiery. People know that and expect it from him. It's his approach and he does it quite well. I was talking to Ava last week about how I still want to cry over Rothschild's piece. What he can offer, what he usually offers, is one of the best voices. It's empowering without being drippy. It's penetrating without being caustic. And when he went after the truth movement, that was just a side that no one wanted to see. It was so unlike him -- "Get over it." And that's why it hurt the magazine. With The Nation, Katrina vanden Heuvel's claim that their own article was some sort of breakthrough was just dumb. There's no other word for it. It wasn't researched. We've covered this. And when you cultivate the personality she has in print, you don't go overboard like that. I know from the e-mail we've received on that here just how many people were offended by the article, by Rothschild's as well. It's funny that both could offer stories on things they supposedly do not believe in but war resisters can't get traction. That's the point that hurt them in terms of cancellations, both magazines. When you're writing about what you think is a waste of time, it just underscores what you don't cover. With Cockburn, again CounterPunch rarely lets a week go by without noting war resistance in some manner. In addition, they cover Iraq and they weigh in on the peace movement. They had an article on that, in fact, that I linked to in the snapshot. I completely disagreed with the author on most points. But I was glad he was willing to attempt a dialogue on the peace movement. Most people don't. Or rather, most publications don't. And when you're covering things you supposedly don't believe in, it becomes very obvious what you're not making time for. Independent media took a hit in 2006 but it's nothing like what's going to happen in 2007, this is readers and listeners, if they don't get serious about Iraq. We were talking earlier about last week's trip and the way that goes on my part is that I have three or four things I want to emphasize in less than ten minutes. I always make one point war resisters. The other points change.

Jess: When we were in Utah last week, you plugged Danny Schechter's movie.

C.I.: Right. And I'll do that if I know something's in the area. That'll be one of the three or four things. But independent media's failure to lead or even cover is always brought up. Not by me. By the students we're speaking to. And that's long term damage. They can kid themselves, publications or programs, that they'll be fine. They won't be. There is a whole group of students, college and high school, that feel betrayed by independent media. They will carry that feeling of betrayal throughout their lives. The only answer is for them to get serious about covering the peace movement, covering the war, covering war resisters. Now we've been saying that here for a year. Readers and listeners have contacted publications and programs with that request. Some were community members, I'm sure, but I'm talking about students bringing this up. And their feelings are that independent media doesn't give a damn. This is a trust betrayed and if you don't work to win it back quickly, it's a trust you can never get again. As much as independent media needs to be alarmed by drop off in sales, listeners, subscribers, they need to grasp that this isn't just a short term thing. The people they have alienated are gone for good if independent media doesn't turn it around and do so quickly. Rushing posts online about "Hillary's In!" doesn't do that. It only underscores that when there's time to horse race, your publication makes time. When Ehren Watada faces a court-martial, you either drag your feet or ignore it. So what we're seeing is an entire generation that will be lost. I don't mean they will be confused. They're following the news. They're more on top of it than most independent media. I'm saying they are lost forever as listeners and subscribers. The Nation's very dependent upon older subscribers currently. They are the ones who've stood by it through good and bad times. But they've just ensured that thirty or forty years from now, they won't have that same base because they've turned off the students today.

Dona: That's their own fault. I don't feel sorry for them. I don't excuse it. They want their 'fun' topics to prove they can be as wasteful as the mainstream with their horse races. Well consider that dessert. They fail to provide the actual meal. People today are starving for meaning and they're not getting it.

Ava: I agree with you. But I mean . . . Darrell Anderson's frustration needs to be aimed at independent media. When C.I. and I are working our friends, begging, pleading, screaming, shouting, to get them to cover a topic, the question is, first question, always, "Well who is covering it." There isn't any bravery in the mainstream. If The Nation would put Ehren Watada on the cover, it would help him. It would help a whole lot. It does make a difference. When Rolling Stone mentioned Ehren Watada for their honor roll, we were able to ride that like crazy. "Well who's covering Watada?" or whatever war resister we were trying to get coverage on. We were able to say, "You do know that Rolling Stone's listing Ehren Watada on their honor roll in their upcoming year-end issue." "They are?" And it made a difference. There was no longer an attempt to do a hard sell on our part, instead it was, "I don't want to be left behind, let me check this out." So when C.I.'s writing about how independent media needs to be doing its job and needs to be creating the world they want to see in their own publications and programs, what they want covered, the kind of voices they want covered, it makes a big difference. Don't get bent out of shape that The NewsHour doesn't have a guest who is a peace activist when you still haven't. The mainstream doesn't work in isolation. It sees things bubbling up and decides to run with it. If one day, all independent media dedicated attention to Ehren Watada, not a headline, serious coverage, you better believe the mainstream would respond.

Jess: Beyond that, there is also the audience that independent media is supposed to serve. coverage matters. Darrell Anderson is upset with the turnout for events, well take it up with independent media. The DC demonstration this weekend, for instance, a national demonstration, it requires people getting there. Mentioning it on Friday is a bit too late to count as a heads up.

Ty: I'll offer a dissenting view. This is my boss' view. He says that independent media has slammed what they call "Hollywood liberals" for years, that they aren't serious, that they aren't committed. He says they're projecting. He points out what he does in one week and asks what does independent media do? And he's talking about his own personal activism. What does independent media do? Who at The Nation is going to protests and demonstrations? Forget covering them, who is even showing up?

C.I.: He named The Nation?

Ty: Yeah. And I know what you're thinking, he's given to the magazine before. He says it was money wasted.

Rebecca: Elaine explained why she doesn't write checks to independent media --

Elaine: I do the pledge drives but that is all. And you can call me Woody Allen in Sleeper, but that's how I feel. He's talking about how a revolution that puts Erno in charge is only going to need another revolution in a short time to replace Erno. I'm not that way about political revolution and political change but I do strongly believe, because what I've seen happen repeatedly, that people talk a good talk, then they get your money and use it to be just like the mainstream, not an alternative to the mainstream, just like the mainstream. So I don't give.

Rebecca: And while C.I.'s far less generous than at an earlier time, I will note that it doesn't help when someone goes to your home town and slams you for your donations.

C.I.: And Rebecca will always stick up for me.

Rebecca: I will. Those comments made were offensive. All the more so on your home turf.

C.I.: Well, I ignored them. As you pointed out in your defense of me, it was made by someone still nursing a hurt ego over my rejecting a drunken pass. But Elaine's point is one she's long made and we've gone back and forth on over the years. Sadly, I now agree with her more than I disagree. Which is why I focus on causes when I donate. They've [independent media] betrayed their audiences and they've also betrayed their donors. They talk a good game but they always seem to, help me out with a sports analogy Mike.

Mike: They always choke when it's crunch time.

Dona: And that's where Darrell Anderson needs to aim his frustration. Cedric, Betty, Ty and Wally should give closing thoughts. Anyone else who wants to jump in should. I don't think Kat said as much but when she did speak, it was powerful.

Cedric: Wasn't it? And I think Kat's been biting her tongue. I like Darrell Anderson, we all do. I see C.I.'s point and agree with it. He's finding himself. That's going to take a lot of time. He's been through a lot. But he's not going to find himself by assuming that 'grieveing mothers' are grabbing up his air time. He needs to start following the media and he'll quickly realize just how little time is given to those attempting to stop the war.

Betty: I'll agree with that and, like Rebecca, I have my little crush on him as well. Probably still do. What would help him and the movement would be various people coming together to discuss the movement. We long ago proposed that The Nation do a roundtable and, no surprise, it didn't happen. But just because independent media doesn't do it doesn't mean you can't do it yourself. CODEPINK and others should do it. Post it on your websites. We'll all link to it. Many others will as well. Get the conversation going. But the idea that I'm going to say, "Lead us!"? I'm not. The movement's been going on without you. It would go on without me. You can't show up and designate yourself a leader. I understand you're hurting, I understand what you're doing is very hard. I agree you deserve recognition. But so do others and the reality is if the movement hadn't been doing the work all along, your statements today wouldn't mean anything. People would greet them with gasps and think you were crazy. The movement has built the space in which we can all discuss Iraq realistically, or those of us who choose to do so. It's not a competition, there's enough love and respect to go around. Within the movement. In terms of media, there's nothing. Your beef is with the media. Aim your frustration at them not at women who have lost their children in an illegal war.

Ty: I think, as usual, Betty's Deep Wisdoms From The Deep South, cut to the heart of it. Our own Maya. And that's not sarcasm. The hope I'll note is this: Look, where we are and think about where we were a year ago, or the year before. Think about all the efforts to shut down debate and discussion. Think about all the cowardice. The peace movement kept going and it will continue to. Phyllis Bennis may have made that point on Saturday to Laura Flanders. I think she said something similar. And I loved her point about wealthy White men meeting up to learn how to be more wealthy and maybe more White. We're not going to have time to note Flanders in an entry. So I'm throwing it out here but I'll echo C.I. by noting that Flanders is going to be covering DC. She may end up being the only one. If she is, you especially need to know that so you can hear coverage. That's all I'll say.

Wally: Did Kat want to say something?

Kat: No. I have been biting my tongue and I think it's obvious that I have.

Wally: Okay well, you know it must be a huge adjustment just when Darrell Anderson returned home. Then to have to go Canada and start over had to be huge. To return to the US was another thing. His actions, he's very active right now, speak to someone committed and wanting change but there's another issue going on and that's dealing with what happened. You don't need to get lost in a whirl of activity to avoid that. Six weeks isn't time to deal with that. I appreciate that he's put that on hold because, for instance, Watada's stand matters to him. But take some time for yourself. And take some time to speak with others, not just to. Your voices is needed. But what you were talking about in some instances didn't reflect the reality I see. I'm speaking specifically of the comments about apathy. If I can grab just a minute more, Ava, Jess and C.I. were late Friday. They were in my neck of the woods and I was really excited. And then they weren't here and weren't here. So finally I headed over to where they had been speaking. I saw the students and heard the last bits of what they were discussing. There wasn't any apathy in that room.

Elaine: Can I jump in, I'm sorry.

Jim: That's fine. But you are the last word.

Elaine: The pressure! I don't know what Darrell Anderson's going to do or not going to do. But I do know that Kevin Benderman and Monica Benderman have a book due out on their experiences. I believe it's coming out this summer. If it's not, they're working on it. Mike highlighted one of Monica Benderman's columns recently and it noted how book stores didn't have a section on war resisters. To that, I'll add buying Peace Mom at Borders Books wasn't easy because I couldn't find it. I finally found it in the military section. Why it was there, I have no idea but that's how they're shelving it. So, point, Monica Benderman kept attention on Kevin Benderman. She was the only one doing that. He's her husband and you can say, "Oh that's what a marriage is." That doesn't take into account how difficult it was when you know your husband's been railroaded and you know he's locked away. But she kept him and his stand alive. She didn't wait for someone to give her a platform or offer an interview. And they're not waiting for book stores to develop a shelving section on war resisters. They're doing their part to make sure it happens. In the end, that's all any of us can do.

Jim: Deep words from the eastern coast? But seriously, that's one to go out on in what feels like the longest roundtable we've ever done. I don't know if we'll have anything else this feature. I'm sure Ava and C.I.'s hands are cramped from taking notes during this. Next week, we're all in DC or with Rebecca. We do plan to do an edition.

Phoning It In, Sailing Along

We realize some days have to be rough. But we think some people are living in a pre-internet world. Specifically some commentators. They believe the world awaits their every word, slowly in print. And that something like actually having a topic doesn't matter.

We'll start with Katha Pollitt whom we like. She ended 2006 in her usual manner, a list of charities. We'll assume the list took much longer to research than it did to read or skim. She does one every year. But apparently she's a seasonal type because for her first column of 2007, she offers up the new year in "Happy New Year!" (page 20, January 22, 2007, The Nation).

We're told she next reviews a book. But might we remind her that February 2nd is Groundhog Day?

The column is a joke. Sorry, Pollitt. When you're doing shout outs to Alan Wolfe, you're writing a joke or maybe you missed his slams in The New York Times. ("Libs" like Wolfe always slam the left.) In fact, that's why the column falls apart. She gives him a shout up in her second point: "Stop giving the right credit for our ideas." How about we stop giving shout outs to the mushy center? Seriously, Pollitt, go The Times archives and look up his reviews. Note that they include serious errors as well as slams at the left.

But we think a 9 point column is an embarrassment. We'd think that even if "point nine" wasn't "Party like it's 2007!" What is that? Did you have nothing to say? Was it a bad day with a deadline looming? When your next collection is published, we'd suggest you don't consider this one.

Now Pollitt we like. ("Oh my God, could you imagine what they'd say if they didn't like her?") And, in the past, she's usually managed to produce something that didn't read like it was written by a newspaper columnist who burnt out on ideas about a decade ago. (Nora Ephron addresses the topic of columnists brilliantly in her novel Heartburn.) Hendrik Hertzberg?

We laughed this week when a left link-fest featured one of his columns. The whole world had weighed in (and their dogs) long before Hendrik decided to grace us with what some see as style. We don't need style, we need commentary. And we don't need it from a fool who can't tell you when the shift started on Iraq or, for that matter, who goes on the road to promote a book and doesn't even know what he wrote in the book. (During the 2004 DNC convention, he was asked a question pertaining to a point he'd made about the 1992 race and his reply can be summed up in one word: "What?")

Both of the above columns appear in print. If we can take a moment of your time, might we steer you towards Margaret Kimerley's "Racism, Fascism at CNN and ABC" (Freedom Rider, Black Agenda Report) and John R. MacArthur's "Who's the Journalistic Hypocrite?" (Harper's magazine). Notice that they both feature thought and analysis. Point of view. Neither reads like the writer is ticking off topics as they try to reach the magic word count.

If you missed it, there were massive layoffs in the publishing world last week. The New York Times reported that People magazine might no longer be able to assign seven people to write five paragraphs on Britney Spears (Katharine Q. Seelye and Richard Siklos' "As Time Inc. Cuts Jobs, One Writer On Britney May Have to Do", C1, January 15, 2007). After columnists have had their chuckles, we suggest they look in the mirror.

The pedestrian column isn't cutting it. People can get that online for free. Printing up lists really doesn't cut it for columns these days. We're sure there was a time, when newspapers thrived, that there was time to be silly (or at least immature) and offer up lists. We're sure that the likes of Thomas Friedman would probably still like to sneak those by.

But for political coverage, it doesn't cut it.

Bland isn't the new Pink which briefly became the new Black.

You could also check out Amy Goodman's "Make King's dream come true" (Seattle Post-Intelligencer).

Now before you think, "Oh no, another White person writing about Martin Luther King, timed for the federal holiday," note that Amy Goodman doesn't just bring up King on the designated day. On Democracy Now!, his work will be brought into conversations on any given day of the year. You should also note that Amy Goodman didn't write the piece trying to promote a (Democratic) candidate. She ties it into her recent trip to Memphis, she opens with the blood stains. This isn't someone looking at the calander and exclaiming, "Oh! MLK Day! Let me pull some thoughts together!"

But that's what people seem to think they can do. They think they can offer laundry lists, for instance. Here's a suggestion for the next person who writes a ten-point column (Pollitt wrote nine-points, this isn't aimed at her), learn how to write one-point before you get giddy with ambition. Learn how to develop a theme. Superwoman or Superman though you may be, leave the things to do list on the fridge. No tree need die so you can reproduce your jottings for a readership.

It's not just that the internet allows commentary on topics in real time, it's also that this society moves at a faster pace. For those thinking, "Well I offer deep insight" -- we suggest that unless your last name is Zinn or Chomsky, you've probably overrated your own offerings.

We do think it is amazing (and we'll include Pollitt in this category because we happen to agree with Martha's e-mail to The Nation), that those who seem to really struggle to find some topic to cover were unable to ever write about Abeer.

We'd further suggest that even Thomas Friedman's ill thought out, wack job, poorly phrased columns exceed much of what passes for commentary in independent print. Why is that? Thomas Friedman wants to sell you on big business and on the war. He believes in something. He takes a side. It's the wrong side. His facts are wrong. But he doesn't put you to sleep. (He does give you a headache.)

Kimberley and MacArthur demonstrate in the articles above that media criticism can be written from the left . . . when you're not fearful that you won't get booked, that your book won't get reviewed, that . . . Go down the list.

All the bland writers of the left and 'left' who think they're auditioning for the New York Times op-ed page might want to check out all the layoffs this week and grasp that their fussy, little voices are not 'reasoned' and haven't gotten them the TV appearences they dreamed of (or the best seller list). Whether you're a useless male or "Truth," nobody needs it.

Nobody needs your slow to arrive, dithering approach anymore. A lot are overly praised for their "stryle" (they have none -- along with independent thought, independent style got squeezed out of them long ago and there's nothing graceful about their prose). Your days of slowly turning out your half-assed clip jobs could be numbered.

While the likes of Uncle Marty kept a lot of you on the speculation dole in the past. Those days may be about to end. While the useless males prefer to use the all knowing voice, the useless women prefer to act as though they observe from on high, a cloud just passing by.

Psuedo-lefties should be especially worried because daily papers aren't going to be adding any 'left' voices anytime soon.

As circulations continue to decline, don't kid yourself that you are 'set.' You might actually have to start earning that check by doing more than looking at the calander and musing, "MLK Day. What did I learn in school?" Or, "What did my neighbor say?" You might actually have to do some work. A scary thought for those who've spent the last year 'sailing along.'

Mailbag

When you spend six hours on a roundtable (which still needs to be edited), Dona goes into panic mode and starts her cry of "Short pieces! Short pieces!" So we're dipping into the mailbag with some e-mails from last week and two before that Ty thought to save for this feature when it was needed.

Last week's poem "Bacon" resulted in 17 e-mails all pointing out that Jess was a vegetarian. He is. He doesn't eat bacon. Sunday nights are awful. We're dragging from the all night sessions. We're trying to decide if we've got it in us to go out to eat. And what usually happens, for the core six and sometimes Kat, is that Ty's taken to saying, "I'll fix something if someone else cleans up." He fixes bacon. We eat bacon sandwiches. For Jess, he fries up tomatoes. This poem started out because C.I. had just gotten back and was going to fry up some bacon but there was none. There were other things but bacon was all C.I. could taste and the more the rest of us heard the talk, the more we wanted it too. Except for Jess, he is a vegetarian.

Noting our career retrospectives on Tina Turner and Stevie Nicks, Marcus wondered if we were planning to do anymore of those?

We actually thought we'd be doing Diana Ross this edition. That was before the never ending roundtable. In addition to Ross, we're also considering an exploration of Dolly Parton. By the time 2007 concludes, we hope to have offered both. (Dona is obsessed, the last few days, with The Essential Dolly Parton vol. 1 and vol. 2.)

On the same topic, Don wonders about other artists and includes 15 names that "you must consider." Sorry, Don, no, we mustn't. All the names on Don's list are male. We think there are enough people looking at the careers of men. We're an alternative. That doesn't mean we try to turn out yet another piece on Bob Dylan or any of the other things covered at length. We will do at least two more of those this year. If we do more than that, rest assured, we'll probably continue to stick with women. Our whole point of existance is not to be doing the exact same thing everyone else is doing. In addition to many sites online, Don can check out Mojo which shares his obsession with all things male.

Rodney notes a review by Virginia Heffernan of The New York Times. He writes, "See, feminists like King of Queens." We're not linking or even providing a date to that tired shit. Ava and C.I. actually had read that review because a friend pointed it out to them, a friend who was offended by it, a friend who works on King of Queens. Read it closer, Rodney, and tell us where the feminism is? Ava and C.I. note that it portrays Carrie as manipulative and scheming and Doug as an innocent good 'ol boy -- and they can provide you with the titles of many episodes where Doug is scamming and scheming throughout. How about when he fakes a heart attack? There's one. (They're listing more but this is a short feature and Wally recognized the title to the heart attack episode.) The point is, the lowbrow Virginia Heffernan always manages to endorse stereotypes. If that's your idea of feminism, Rodney, you need some help. Ava and C.I. say they'd wonder if Heffernan was just so tickled by Doug's last name that she found the show amusing if it weren't for the fact that low-brow and sexual stereotypes are all she has to traffic in? They also note that they write "a feminist look," not "the feminist look" -- and that even "a feminist look" would be hard to squeeze Virginia Heffernan into.

Robert wants us to know that, "Impeachment doesn't matter. If Nancy Pelosi says it doesn't matter, then it doesn't matter." All hail Our Lord Pelosi, apparently. But in the real world, it doesn't matter what Pelosi wants or doesn't want. Congress is supposed to represent the people. We know that's confusing because so few do. But demanding that they do their jobs is one way to change that.

Kelli passes on that she loves the roundtables and loves Betty especially in them. She writes: "When she guest blogged, I loved it. Both at Rebecca's site and at Kat's. Betty's always putting her writing down, so you tell her I think she's smart and funny and I'm always interested in what she has to say." Betty replies: "Thanks for writing, Mom." Seriously, Kelli, we agree with you. You left out one point about her though, you never know what she will say. We're serious. What Cedric first called her Deep Wisdoms from the Deep South always bring a new layer to the discussions. That's true of the non-roundtable pieces here as well.

Ava and C.I.'s review of Ugly Betty resulted in more e-mails than anything else. Their commentaries always get the most e-mail, so let's clarify that, the number of e-mails are right up there with the response to Prison Break and other commentaries that generated a near obsessive outpouring. Sue Lynn noted that, "I thought, what's the big deal about Thursday. Everyone knows Rebecca Romijn is joing the cast and she's going to play the woman that's supposed to be dead. Then, in the final moments, when it turned out she was playing a dead character but it was Daniel's brother, my mouth just dropped. Thank you for the heads up. I may yet forgive you for not spelling out in your heads up to That 70s Show that Eric would be in the last episode."

Dennis wonders why child actors are not reviewed by Ava and C.I.? Because they're child actors. They're not adults. That's why they didn't review Malcomn in the Middle, though they really wanted to. To have done that would have meant either skirting their own rule or barely noting the show.

Supreena wonders if there's a show that's gone off while they've been covering TV that they wished they'd caught? Yes, Still Standing. They wanted to review that. They never got around to it. Partly because Jim kept giving them "assignments" every time they'd planned to review it. It's also true that the print edition contained a review of Twins (which also ran in the gina & krista round-robin). They had worked on that and needed to finish it (two paragraphs more, at least, they say now) but Jim "assigned" another show once we started the writing edition and they didn't have time to finish it. So they tossed it in the print edition so it could go out and worked on the review Jim had assigned.

Noting the media reform entry that appeared at all the community sites that posted Monday, DunDude deems it "powerful" but wonders if we worry about "not getting the shouts" and we'll assume he means shout outs. We don't worry about shout outs. We don't worry about links. Not long after we started, when we tackled a watchdog, we got hate mail from one with the watchdog and many from the one's friend telling us that we were "dead" and blah blah blah. We're still around. He's gone. Funny how life works out.

Another confession to the rape and murder of 14-year-old Abeer

It's not yet up to the Trident standards (four out of five recommend . . .) but it is worth noting that another US soldier confessed to his part in the war crimes of the gang rape of 14-year-old Abeer Qasim Hamza, the murders of Abeer, Hadeel Qassim Hamza (Abeer's five-year-old sister), Qassim Hamza Raheem and Fakhriya Taha Muhasen (their parents).

In November, James P. Barker confessed to his role and, last week, Paul Cortez confessed. Steven D. Green, who the press has reported was the likely ring-leader, continues to deny any involvement. Jesse Spielman and Bryan Howard also have yet to admit to any involvement. Green will be tried in a federal court (civilian), Howard and Speilman in a military court due to the fact that the latter two were still serving when the official explanation ('insurgents') of the March 12, 2006 war crimes began to disinegrate.

As part of their plea agreements, Barker and Cortez have agreed to testify against the other three. Cortez' attorney mainstains that Cortez was more of an observerer. In Barker's testiomny he offered that Cortez appeared to take part in the gang rape. Cortez did take part. Even if he didn't penetrate Abeer, he held her down while Barker did.

That's not "observing." A press that cared about the rape and murder of a fourteen-year-old girl and the murders of her family would be examing the attorney's claim; however, as we've well seen, the press really isn't interested in this story with very few exceptions.

The Nation Stats

The January 22nd edition of The Nation has arrived. There are two other editions that we'll assume are in the mail, en route. This picks up from the last check in on the stats.

In this edition, we're ignoring the letter page (billed as a "Ruckus") because we don't cover the letter pages.

Editorials & Comment
unsigned editorial (don't tell AlterPunk!)
Bruce Shapiro contribues "The Saddam Spectacle"
Victory Navasky contributes "Ford, Nixon, The Nation"
Salim Lone contributes "Destabilizing The Horn"
Bob Moser contributes "Johnny Populist"
John Nichols contributes "A Democratic Anomaly"

Seeing a problem?

No, not just that Lone would be expected to write about Iraq -- that was his UN role. Five commentarires, five men.

Columns
Calvin Trillin's "Another New Policy for Iraq"
Alexander Cockburn's "Greater Than Warren Harding"
Katha Pollitt's "Happy New Year!"

Pollitt's column is addressed in our roundtable. Readers voted and said Trillin needed to be counted ("or it would be a slap to poetry," wrote Nolanda). So you have three columns and the score is: 2 men, 1 women.

Articles
Bill Moyers' "A New Story For America"
Katrina vanden Heuvel's "Top 10 For A More Perfect Union."
Chuck Collins' "Ten Blockbuster Hearings"
John Nichols' "Oversight Returns"
Sasha Abramsky's "Blue-ing The West"

Well Stasha (not a typo) gives you more stereotyping. When they're bleeding readers, is it really necessary to continue to risk offending the south with press made stereotypes? You've got one woman in there. Score: 4 men, 1 woman.

Books & Arts
Jeff Chang's "Jay-Z"
Henry Siegman's "CARTER: Palestine Peace Not Apartheid"
Stuart Klawans on two films
Peter Gizzi with a poem

Apparently only male poets desire to be published in The Nation. Who knew? Four pieces. Score: 4 men.

Total score for issue: 15 men, 2 women.

Year to date stats: 35 men have authored (or co-authered) pieces since the first 2007 issue. How many women? 9 women. That's nearly four times as many male writers as female writes that the magazine has featured in their first three issues of 2007 (one of which was a "double issue").

Do women compose 1/4 of the adult population in the United States? No, just at The Nation.

Do you see why media reform needs to include independent or "independent" media? We thought so.

Highlights

Selected by Mike, Kat, Cedric, Rebecca, Wally, Elaine and Betty, our picks for the best at the community sites last week.

"Thomas Friedman plays at being Chauncey Gardiner" -- this is hilarious. All the more so if you've seen Being There where the gardiner gets all his 'wisdom' from TV.

"robert parry, sarah olson, etc" -- Rebecca weighing in on a number of topics.

"Diana's Dud" -- step away from the latest CD from Flawless, Kat advises.

"The literary set?" & "THIS JUST IN! THE PUZZLES OF S.M.U. AND ALBERTO" -- Cedric and Wally probe the non-readers.

"Serving symbolism and trying to pass it off as the real thing" & "THIS JUST IN! IT'S A SYMBOLIC WORLD AFTER ALL!" -- in the spirit of Cedric and Wally's post, might we suggest that regular column change its title from "Sweet Victories" to "Symbolic Victories"?

"Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Celibacy in the City (Series Finale)"" -- All good things, gotta come to an end. Sing it Jackson Browne. And bid farewell to Harri and her gal pals.

"Help Wanted: The Nation's in need of direction" -- Mike weighs in on thoughts as to what the problem at the magaine really is.

"Comics -- Celibacy in the City" -- Elaine explains the story of Celibacy in the City.

"Cajun Chicken Wings" -- it's more than just a recipe, folks.

"Ruth's Report" -- Ruth takes a look at PBS.
"Iraq snapshot" -- our favorite snapshot of the week.

Thoughts on media reform

This is a bonus joint-post going up at community sites.


The media's collapse, said actor and activist Jane Fonda in an earlier speech, shielded the government's own failures.
Telling the story of Abeer Qasim Hamza, a 15-year-old Iraqi who was raped and murdered by U.S. soldiers, Fonda criticized the news media's impotence in covering the war.
"The cold-blooded murder of Abeer and her family is a tragedy," Fonda said. "But it's almost as great a tragedy when her story and all the other stories that are difficult to hear and difficult to accept are buried in the back of news pages and quickly shuffled off the nightly news." She added: "A truly powerful media is one that can stop a war, not start one."
A founder of the Women's Media Center, which advocates for greater representation of women in media and in newsrooms, Fonda said American journalism takes pride in balance but "forgets that the world is not divided only by right and left."
"During the coverage of the 2004 elections," she added, "journalists were more than twice as likely to turn to a male source than a woman."

The above, noted by Cindy, is from Trevor Aaronson's "Fonda Wraps up Media Conference: Advocate for women in newsrooms says journalism forgets divide not just right and left" (Memphis Commerical Appeal via Common Dreams). That's a jumpoing off point for a joint entry. Participating are:

The Third Estate Sunday Review's Dona, Jess, Ty, Ava and, me, Jim;
Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude;
Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills);
Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man;
C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review;
Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix;
Mike of Mikey Likes It!;
Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz;
and Wally of The Daily Jot


Fonda's comments strike at the heart of the problems with media today. They address the issue of Abeer, Iraq, and the portrayal of the 'other' (anyone who's non-White, non-middle-aged, non-straight, and non-White). As Rebecca has argued, Abeer's story is the story of Iraq.And what did the media do with it?

Independent media ignored it. Early on (June), it looked like there might be some interest in but that was quickly dropped as independent media marched off elsewhere. It never really bothered to pick up the story after it was done completely ignoring Iraq. No article in The Nation ever ran on Abeer or has run as of today. A fourteen-year-old girl was gang raped, murdered, her five-year-old sister was murdered, her parents were murdered and the initial blame for the war crimes was 'insurgents.' The reality was that the war crimes were committed by non-Iraqis. In November, James P. Barker admitted to his involvement in the war crimes (he entered the home as part of a plan to rape Abeer and kill her and others in the house). His court confession also included the actions of others. Since they've yet to be tried, or to confess, you can toss "alleged" in front of their names if you like.

But Abeer was raped and killed and where was the media when the details emerged?
The Washington Post, the Associated Press, Off Our Backs and Robin Morgan were accounted for, they weighed in. Where was everyone else?

The New York Times specialized in a funny sort of reporting. Before the defense could present their legal argument in an Article 32 hearing that was held in August, the New York Times, supposedly presenting objective reporting, managed to run an opinion piece as reporting and somehow managed to argue the defense's case. In a piece published before the defense had presented their case. In a defense that a military legal expert said had no known basis in legal history. Wow. Those New York Times reporters (Carolyn Marshall and Robert F. Worth) are certainly amazing. They predicted it all -- and without any help from the defense! What seers are they.

The New York Times specialized in another kind of reporting on the war crimes -- never mentioning Abeer's name. To name the victim would be to give a face to her and since their own 'reporting' had already crossed the line into advocacy journalism (not anything wrong with advocacy journalism but the paper self-presents as 'objective') it was very clear that their interest wasn't in the truth, wasn't in reporting what happened, but in rendering Abeer and what happened to her invisible. How do you, as reporters at the paper repeatedly did, cover the trial of men accused of gang raping and murdering Abeer and never manage to mention her name?


You do it very carefully when you're interests are in managing and mitigating public opinion. Better to make her a faceless victim if you're interested in continuing to sell the illegal war which the paper is interested in doing.


Now the paper's actions should have been called out. So you might think you got that. You didn't. If in no other way, The Nation could have covered Abeer as a media topic. There media columnist could have addressed the way the paper of record rendered Abeer invisible. But he wasn't interested in that. AlterPunk was interested in useless articles such as his lengthy take on why the New York Times shouldn't run unsigned editorials -- a column that ran in a magazine (The Nation) which runs unsigned editorials.

He was interested in getting upset that he'd recently learned the New York Times' policy on quoting from comments on websites was questionable. In a piece where they rushed to lynch Janet Jackson -- a piece riddled with inaccuracies, only a few of which resulted in corrections by the paper -- it was apparently okay to 'doctor' a quote from a website. The paper is aware of the docotring -- at every level -- and they issued no correction on that. If AlterPunk wants to feign shock about the Times' 'quoting' from websites, he might do better to know the paper's history on it.) (Altering quotes, failure to research your articles, presenting half-baked theories that blow up with the most basic examination and not even grasping that just because you say something was or wasn't a number one doesn't make it true didn't result in the arts section's version of Judith Miller being banned from the paper for anyone interested. We could also touch on the topic of allowing people to create titles for themselves and the paper running with them. That started in the arts section and then, as the Times well knows up through the editorial offices -- carried over to the front page of the news section. The defense on that, expressed by the editor responsible for the front page piece, was that the executive in question didn't like his actual title so he preferred to use a title that doesn't exist. That may be the executive's wish but if the company wanted him to have that title, they'd give it to him. (They haven't and his being billed by a title he doesn't hold has caused anger at the company and caused those still expressing disbelief to note that when you're 'friends' with writers at the paper you can write your own ticket in what passes for 'objective' reporting.) Maybe the Cindy Brady of the faux left can next tackle that?

Probably not because it's safer for all involved (safer translates as coverage and book reviews) to offer up useless topics (unsigned editorials? A pressing issue in the bull pens of high school papers, no doubt) .

And independent media played 2006 safe and cowardly with few exceptions.

Today, John Nichols and Katrina vanden Heuvel write of Dr. Martin Luther King. It may be less than generous to note that the magazine's choosing to note him on the federal holiday in his honor. It's pointing the obvious to note that the passing last year of Coretta Scott King produced no article -- in print or 'online exclusive.' So it strikes us as a more than apalling that the same magazine who didn't appear to give a damn about Coretta Scott King now rushes pieces on MLK to their website.


Like Abeer, Coretta Scott King meets the defnition of an 'other.' African-American, a woman, she couldn't get any traction. The media critic for The Nation couldn't even note that the paper of little record didn't editorialize about her passing -- though, in the same week, they could note a playwright (and personal friend of Gail Collins) who died. Her passing didn't rate a column either. The closest to a column, and the only mention in the editorial section, was Bob Herbert's tacked on one paragraph noting she had died.

What does that say? What does the above say?

Quite a lot and if people want to address media reform, they better do seriously. The Nation is the left magazine with the largest circulation so we'll focus on it.

In 2006, when both Katha Pollitt and Naomi Klein were on leave while they worked on books, two prime spots were open to be temporarily filled. When two strong voices are absent and they happen to be female, you might think The Nation would fill those spots with women. But apparently having nearly wall to wall contributions from male writers wasn't quite enough for "Nobody Owns The Nation," they needed more male voices.

This operating belief goes a long way towards explaining why a freelancer placed her article on Abu Ghraib last year not with The Nation but with a fashion magazine (Marie Claire). The Nation should be leading and it isn't. That's in terms of what gets covered and who gets to cover it. (Already in 2007, their appalling low number of pieces written by women threaten to match the disgraceful numbers for 2006.)

Is the nation White, male, middle aged and straight in all regards? No, but if you got that impression from reading The Nation in 2006, your mistaken beliefs were certainly supported by the magazine.

Alternative media is supposed to provide an alternative, to present what media could be. (On a lower budget, granted.) Offering what the mainstream provides (often the worst it provides -- such as handicapping political races as though they were horse races) but with a left/Democratic spin (for many in independent media, the 'left' view is determined by what the DNC decides it is) isn't an alternative. It's a negative, a photographic negative, it's the bizarro world, it's just not an alternative.

An alternative requires providing an alternative. That requires covering topics that the mainstream isn't interested in. That requires creating the kind of media that demonstrates what is wrong with the current system.

If the extent of 'wrong' is that more Republican hacks are tossed on the airwaves than Democratic hacks, then The Nation is doing a wonderful job. If being a party organ for the Democratic Party is an alternative, congratulations to The Nation.

That would explain why coverage of students qualifies in the magazine as covering what an Iowan poli-sci student deemed "Eisnhower Democrats." Look, they're War Hawks, well funded one with the usual crowd of useless names speaking to them and funding them! Oh, look, here's another piece about 'activists' who are overjoyed by their 'success' (they farmed out volunteers to Congressional campaings) and who explain that sometimes you have to stop 'hugging a tree,' 'put on a suit,' and get down to business. Such business doesn't include serious concern over the environment as the dismissive 'tree hugging' reference telegraphs.

Meanwhile, in the real world, students organize to end the war, organize to rebuild in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, organize to halt the imprisonments at Guantanamo, organize (and lead!) on the immigrations rights issue.

The immigration rights issue? "Alternative" coverage apparently means you go down to the deep south and speak to White people opposed to immigrant rights. You also toss in a male (of course male) activist. You avoid the students who led the protests, who woke a sleeping nation.You avoid their bravery and maybe you even offer a slap to them that the Mexican flag shouldn't be carried at a protest. Now those words generally come from people who didn't participate in any of the protests so the words are as useless as the owners of the mouths uttering them.

Where is the place at the table for people of ethnicities and color, for women and LBGTs?

The Nation is looking for a publicity director. That's not going to change the opinions of students opposed to the magazine, students who see it as useless and judgmental of them, students who see their own work and the issues that matter to them ignored.

A new publicity director won't conceal the fact that 'equality' has a funny meaning at The Nation. Equality doesn't mean when two female columnists are on leave, you fill their posts with other male voices. Equality does seem to mean that you demonstrate how fair you are by criticizing Harry Belafonte. At last! African-Americans can be slammed equally at The Nation! (If undeservedly.) Now they can't get covered, Coretta Scott King's death demonstrates that, but they've 'achieved' enough at the magazine that they can be slammed.

Will a publicy director speak to the staff about how they conduct themselves in on air interviews?

We think she or he should. We think that's now a requirement after Laura Flanders was called everything but stupid on air. (Flanders an astute journalist, critic and broadcaster.) That hostile, patronizing, impatient and dismissive treatment didn't come from a guest billed as being on the right, it came from a Nation staffer (and Lyndon La Rouche refugee). We think that interview, the hostitility expressed towards Flanders, says a lot. How does anyone at the magazine come to believe it's okay to treat Flanders, or any woman, in such a manner? (It was bullying. Flanders stood her ground.)

Well it helps when the culture is predominately male, predominately straight, and predominately White. And we're speaking of the culture at the magazine. Media reform is suddenly an issue (for a week or so) and we're reminded of the 2006 issue on media reform which played like celebrity even if it didn't make for good reading. Having something to say wasn't apparently a requirement, just name value. (Which led to it playing out like the what-are-they-reading feature in Vanity Fair -- though in fairness to Van Fair, that's a tiny item in the magazine, not something they provide for pages and pages.)

Margaret Kimberley (Black Agenda Report) is very popular with this community, so let's get practical: when does she get invited to the table?

Or does she have to blindly cheer every Democrat to be included?

If impeachment was a topic worthy of a January 2006 cover, why is it a topic dropped when Nancy Pelosi announcing she is pulling it off the table? Last time we checked, she wasn't listed on the masthead of The Nation.

Independent media needs to show some independence. That's independence in thought and in coverage. Talk of media reform is meaningless if alternative outlets aren't willing to provide an alternative currently.

As 2006 drew to a close, CounterSpin finally found a woman they could interview for the full program (a practice common with male guests). We see that and her topic (the way the press covers war) as a big step in the right direction. But having lived through one of the worst years for independent media (2006), we're not about to act like media reform is something required of the mainstream and that the bulk of independent media has done a good (or even an okay) job in the last year. It hasn't.

It has not reaffirmed the core of democracy (that would require covering actions that included more than running for office or urging that readers vote). It has not practiced anything resmembling Brown v. Board in their own coverage. And we're all dying for the moment where a host (male or female) of a panel has the guts to stop a male, who repeatedly cuts off a female guest, by pointing out just how dismissive he's treating the woman and asking him why he thinks that treatment is acceptable? We're also dying to get something other than The Elector.

We're not interested in The Elector and we're not interested in linking to sop. A perfect example would be an article that David Enders has written. Does the writing qualify for sop? No. It's well written. But The Nation feels it's only worthy of 'online exclusive' status -- implying that they grade outside writers much more harshly than they do insiders. (Possibly they're under the mistaken belief that their print editions are awash with Iraq coverage?) While we're glad that both John Nichols and Katrina vanden Heuvel chose, on the MLK federal holiday, to note MLK, we're not interested in linking to the articles because of the magazine's own silence on Coretta Scott King. In fact, community wide we probably won't to link to anything from The Nation other than Naomi Klein or Katha Pollitt. Why?

Why bother? Why bother to link to a magazine that refuses to cover war resisters? They can't get ahold of Kyle Synder? (Puts them in the minority.) No, they just don't want to. They've demonstrated that throughout 2006 and the slam they printed on Ehren Watada is so offensive and does not pass the 'free speech' phrase that's used as a bully club.

Isn't it funny how free speech lets in Christopher Hitchens, La Rouche refugees and sexual predators but it doesn't let it people of color, it doesn't let it in women, it doesn't let in coverage of peace activists and demonstrations, and it doesn't let in war resisters.

Ehren Watada's beliefs about the illegality and the immorality of the war could be backed up with citations from (much earlier) coverage of Iraq that The Nation provided. So he takes a stand and they play dumb. That's not cutting it. At some point, when you know the war is wrong, you have to take a stand. Ehren Watada has done that. The Nation reads like its unsure. A war resister is a cover story, not a sidebar and especially not a sidebar after you've just printed a useless (unneeded and uninformed) quote from a man slamming Watada. That a magazine which says it is opposed to the illegal war continues to be unable to offer one editorial or column in support of Watada or any of the other war resisters to go public in the summer of 2006, while filling pages of the magazine week after week with useless trash like AlterPunk's nonstop shout outs to various men (someday he'll prove he's a real boy, just like Pinochio!) (and when that happens, he still won't correct his lie that Naomi Klein was a fashion consultant to the Gore campaign).

We're tired of it and we think media reform is a useless topic until independent media is willing to practice some of it themselves.

Truest statement of the week

Starting with US war resister Ehren Watada who, in June 2006, became the first officer to publicly refuse to deploy to the illegal war. Last Thursday, at the Fort Lewis Army, a military pretrial, presided over by Lt. Col. John Head, heard arguments to outline the scope of the scheduled February 5th court-martial.
Today, the supposedly educated (if not enlightened) members of The Seattle Times editorial board issued their own journalistic ruling -- one that they apparently hammered out with bully clubs. Representing the finest of mob mentalities, if not journalism or democracy, The Seattle Times argues that Ehren Watada should be convicted on both counts (missing deployment and conduct unbecoming an officer) because . . . well the system just won't survive otherwise. Having killed the invidual to "save" what they see as a weak and dottering system (otherwise Watada wouldn't have to be convicted -- if they had any faith in the strength and resiliency of the American system, the Nervous Nels wouldn't have argued for his conviction for the good of the system), they embrace a long history of knuckle draggers who chose expediency over true democracy because there's nothing like a moral imperative to have the most closed minded reaching for the white sheets and rope.
For the system to struggle on, the editorial board argues, the individual must be stamped out and the accusers of Socrates couldn't have said it better in ancient times. If they've learned anything from their (limited) education, the only evidence is that, while calling for a judicial death, they stop short of imprisoment because they fear a martyr who could galvanize a public.
So, by their rudimentary and flawed logic, Ehren Watada must be found guilty to give pause to any other service member that might follow in his footsteps thereby defending the "good Nazi" argument overruled in the Nuremberg Trials which found that following orders was not a valid excuse and that each soldier is an individual agent responsible for his or her own actions.
The Seattle Times sees service members as worker bees and one wonders how far they'd be willing to carry out their flawed logic. Were it The Berlin Times in the immediate aftermath of WWII would they editorialize in favor of Nazis sending Jews, gypsies and gays to the gas chambers? Doubtful because the only basis for their stand today is that the individual must be stamped out at all costs due to the board's own deluded belief in the weakness of the American system. (Possibly they'd term it "the American experiment"?). In an apparent correction to Max Weber (and a dismissal of Robert K. Merton's work on Universalism), the editorial board argues that the state must not only use military might as they see fit but also narrowly define "justice" when it suits their own purposes.
In a decade of journalistic cowardice, the editorial echoes many of the themes that saw the punishment of those journalists who, in real time, called out the Bully Boy for his Bunny-Fu-Fu hop around the continental United States on September 11th for what it was (cowardice), and saw a rush to pass off press releases as investigative journalism. The system will survive, it always does, it's modern day journalism that has decayed.
In the real world, where a spine is required to stand erect, Ehren Watada is part of a movement of resistance within the military and The Seattle Times' hoped for guilty verdict hasn't stopped the movement which includes people such as Watada, Kyle Snyder, Darrell Anderson, Ricky Clousing, Aidan Delgado, Mark Wilkerson, Agustin Aguayo, Joshua Key, Ivan Brobeck, Camilo Meija, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Jeremy Hinzman, Corey Glass, Patrick Hart, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Katherine Jashinski, Chris Teske and Kevin Benderman. In total, thirty-eight US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.

The above is from C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot" for Tuesday, January 9, 2007 and Mike and Jim both agreed last Tuesday that it was the pick for truest statement of the week. Juding by e-mails to this site, they were far from alone in making that call immediately.