Dear Darrell

Dear Darrell,





Our point that no one's getting much attention from the media? We'd urge you to check small media over the next few days. We're sure that if Amy Goodman broadcasts footage of the DC rally on Democracy Now!, Bob Watada (father of Ehren Watada) will be included. But we're not talking about Goodman. We're talking about, specifically, the left media in print, specifically The Nation and The Progressive.





You know the importance press attention makes and you know Ehren Watada is facing a February 5th court-martial. You may not know that neither magazine mentioned him in print in 2006. (Ricky Clousing was covered in The Progressive's photo section spread. Putting The Progressive one up on The Nation.) In 2007, The Nation would finally mention Watada in print. He wasn't worthy of an article to those deciding, just a sidebar, a sidebar that appeared a page after he was called a coward in the main article. Now last week, the magazine did two of their 'online exclusives' that didn't focus on Ehren Watada but did focus on Save-Sarah-Olson!


A journalist facing a maximum of six months of jail, an Iraq war resister facing a maximum of six years in jail -- they elected to emphasize Sarah Olson.





We were at the DC rally. We were interviewing people. The most popular speech was Bob Watada's.





So watch The Nation and The Progressive over the next few days and see if the protests get covered. Then look at how they are covered. Is Bob Watada mentioned? (Matthew Rothschild has not covered Ehren Watada, he did cover Sarah Olson earlier this month, online, for The Progressive. John Nichols and Marc Cooper covered Sarah Olson last week, online, for The Nation.) Now you were still in Canada when Watada went public. At the Veterans for Peace conference, some participants met with you and other war resisters in Canada on the border between the two countries. You know Watada was news so you may be surprised to learn that he wasn't news to The Progressive or The Nation's print magazines. That is, however, the reality. Having offered two 'online exclusives' on Sarah Olson last week, will The Nation mention Bob Watada's speech? Will they use that to finally cover Ehren Watada as something more than an after thought? We doubt it. We're sure will get goo-ga-ga press on what the politicians said. The Nation can't tear itself from the crotch of Congress these days.





But Watada matters. You know he does. You support him. You went to Fort Lewis to show your support. You're also well aware that although Amy Goodman interviewed you (and others), the left mags didn't. You may not be aware of it but Ivan Brobeck didn't get interviewed or covered by the magazines. (Print or even online, for that matter.) Kyle Snyder is a name they can't bring themselves to type. Mark Wilkerson? Their response would be Mark who? Ditto Ricky Clousing, ditto, you know the drill.

But let's note Agustin Aguayo because his court-martial has been set for March 6th and not many even bothered to note that last week, did they?



But they've had time to jaw bone as though Sarah Olson was the most pressing issue in a February 5th court-martial. Watch and see who notes Bob Watada and who hides behind Congress. (Or at least kneels with their lips sealed to Congress' crotch.)





Now parents who lost children were at the DC rally (and at others around the country). Watch and see if they're taking up the coverage that could go to war resisters. They won't. They won't get covered. Congress members, that we're willing to bet gets covered.





The at least half a million attending won't matter either because they don't sit in Congress. They won't be covered.





If you're wondering about turn out and where is the word of the mouth, look to our not-so-brave independent media.





We believe you probably won't remember the daytime talk show Donahue. Those participating in the writing of this who are just a bit younger than you don't remember the program. Oprah had become the success story by the time you would have been a small child. But Phil Donahue decided to write about the February 5th court-martial . . . in terms of Sarah Olson.





We're not sure whether you know of the media critic Norman Solomon or not? His most recent book (which we praised) is War Made Easy. Last week he weighed in on the February 5th court-martial . . . in terms of what a tragedy it is for Sarah Olson.





Darrell, our readers don't give a damn about Sarah Olson. In fact, they use stronger words than "damn" in the e-mails they sent in this week.





Who's getting the coverage that should go to war resisters? Sarah Olson.





She's getting big and small media. Ehren Watada gets an editorial this month from The Seattle Times saying that he should be convicted. Sarah Olson gets a "Poor Sarah!" editorial from The Los Angeles Times. Readers are comparing Sarah Olson to the "missing blonde" that big media junks up the airwaves with while avoiding the real news. We see the comparison.





Not only is Watada's maximum sentence twelve times as long as Olson's, he is the story. He is at the center of the story. But independent media prefers to cover their own. (Much as big media preferred to cover Judith Miller, Matt Cooper and others while ignoring the crime that was the outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame.)





As you know, Bob Watada, his wife Rosa Sakanishi (Ehren's step-mother) and Carolyn Ho (Ehren's mother) are speaking out non-stop. All spoke out on Saturday. Carolyn Ho's about to begin another tour to try to raise awareness before the court-martial. You know how important that is and how much your mother, Anita Anderson, did to speak out for you. All three will reach people but see if they reach the two independent magazines with the largest circulation. See if, finally, they are moved to cover Watada.





The way the print schedule works for The Nation is that a new issue will come out at the end of this week. It won't make it into subscribers mail boxes for days nor will hit most magazine racks before Tuesday of next week at the earliest. Point?





Next Monday is February 5th. Even if The Nation finally found the guts to do a cover story or an editorial on Ehren Watada, it would come too late. Too damn late.





Who's hurting the movement, who's preventing war resisters from garnering the support and attention they deserve? We think we've offered quite a few names in this feature.





Best & peace,


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.



P.S. Darrell, features like this are really starting to piss off independent media. They don't bother to write this site. They write The Common Ills because C.I.'s policy is that your e-mail isn't quoted from unless you give permission. So they whine and gripe to C.I. Now Jess is working on a reply to one of the whiners. (Jess, Ava, Martha, Shirley and Eli help C.I. with the e-mails.) So the point is, independent media doesn't like these type of features. (They won't like Isaiah's comic when it goes up at The Common Ills today either.) Our attitude? Too damn bad. You want it to stop, start covering war resisters. Don't whine to us, don't gripe at us. That's our attitude. Want these type of features to stop? It's pretty damn easy, start covering war resisters. Until you do, expect a lot more of these features.
Darrell, as we understand, correct us if we're wrong, you are available for interviews. And you can also hook them up with other war resisters. Until the day comes when independent media stops play Democratic Party cheerleader, stops licking the crotches of Congress, and actually starts covering the war the way they should, these features will continue. That's the luxury of not having 'traded links' or being in debt to anyone -- we can speak our mind. We intend to continue doing that and calling people on their shit that prolongs the illegal war.

Now The Nation wants to reach the country? Now?

In the tradition of The Encyclopedia of Cheap Travel; The Penny Pincher's Passport to Luxury Travel: The Art of Cultivating Preferred Customer Status (Travelers' Tales); Been There-Comped That: Free Travel, Dining and Entertainment, All for the Cost of Some Ink and, possibly, Fifty Layovers: Fifty Lays in Fifty Days, The Nation is preparing to bring you The Nation Guide published by Vintage Books (and not their own imprint) in an easy to read soft cover oversize.

What the volume (we wouldn't call it a "book") hopes to do is to provide readers with a city by city (small towns may be ignored) guide to various businesses, retailers and organizations in each city that can be seen as "progressive." (They probably would've called it The Nation's Progressive Guide To America, but there's already a magazine entitled The Progressive.)

We think it will probably, in the long run, cause more trouble than the project is worth. (The first case of an employer not paying overtime could lead Fox "News" to say, "And it's 'progressive'! It's judged as such by the left mag The Nation.") We'll note that the editor is Richard Lingeman and we're not fond of these type of books to begin with. For instance, we enjoy reading Pauline Kael's books of collected reviews, we loathe For Keeps which is a cutting/sample of reviews and about as useful to film lovers as Blockbuster's ("Collector's Edition") The Greatest Movies Of All Time. We think it's of little use to readers since reviews are repeatedly reduced and Kael's fiery writing is reduced to snippets.

(For those wondering, if and when we can convince Ava and C.I. to take a weekend off, we'll do a cutting of their various reviews. They are both opposed to the idea which is why they have provided you a commentary, week after week, for 2 years now with no week off. That feature, if it ever is used, isn't a 'prize' we'll be proud of. It is merely something on the backburner should they really need a break. In the early days, we all wrote the TV reviews -- Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess, Ava and C.I. together -- around the third or fourth review it became exclusively Ava and C.I.'s terrain because what readers were responding to was their contributions to the group reviews.)

Besides being little use to readers, we have to wonder who their target audience is?

Since they intend to cover the entire United States (or include it, actual nominations -- research -- will be done by magazine readers who submit their choices and Lingeman will act as a combo team of Simon, Paula and Randy for this American Progressive Idols), it seems fair to guess that they intend to sell it everywhere. We're sure it will do better on both coasts, possibly in the north, we're wondering what reaction they are expecting from the south?

When you can't leave the false stereotype of "red" and "blue" states out of your magazine [see , most recently, Sasha Abramsky's "Blue-ing The West" -- we noted this in our "Nation Stats" tally here, you can also drop back to selections from Christopher Hayes -- in many outlets including The New Republic(an) -- infamous for the 'groundbreaking' work "How To Turn Your Red State Blue"], do you really think you have a right to expect liberals, Democrats, lefties in the south to use their money to support your project?

Do they really need Abramsky to weigh in on their state? Does he really see himself as a latter day of Alex de Tocqueville? (If so, he is in the minority.) It's interesting because The Nation ran an editorial ("Stand Up and Fight") right after the election (November 22, 2004 issue) where they (unsigned! Sick 'em, Alterpunk!) declared, "It would be a mistake to adopt the television stereotype of red states and blue states." Did anyone at the magazine read that? Did it register? Did they miss Laura Flanders' The Country Is Purple tour last year?

Offering more than a single sentence, and getting to the heart of the matter after the 2004 election, was C.I.'s "'Red' States" series. (Part one, part two, part three, part four through November 26-27, 2004.) A lot of us working on this edition read it at the time and enjoyed it. We didn't think too much of it. Wally and Betty did, living in southern states (Florida and Georgia). C.I. had mentioned that nonsense in passing in previous entries because it was being tossed around by light weight pundits and offending southern readers. (They were readers then, about to become members.) They dictated the content (read the series), they wanted it addressed and it was. When this site first started, C.I. was there with the 'gang' (Ty, Dona, Jim, Jess and Ava). In the early days, that was it. And while C.I. would say "Take my name off it" on some pieces, there was no problem with them going up. The exception was when any of us attempted to use the mythical "red" state v. "blue" state frame. It's an easy shortcut and it was conventional wisdom. On that, C.I. would get as loud as needed that, if something like that went up, it was walking time. Members of The Common Ills community responded to that series, they appreciated that someone got the reality of what they were dealing with and that someone would defend them. That was a trust and it couldn't be broken.

For those who haven't read the series, the problem couldn't be reduced to an electoral college map (though the map did indicate Bully Boy had a heady win -- he didn't -- and that's why it was so popular with many). The series highlights what people were seeing in their own areas, the Democratic Party (in a presidential race) not opening a headquarters in their county or parrish. The Democratic Party not funding races. Democratic presidential candidates not even visiting their areas.

Texas members maintain that Teresa Heinz Kerry visited more areas than John Kerry did. And members in the Dallas-Fort Worth area, a huge area, note that she visited and he never did. She was also highly effective in rural areas of the state including one member who thought Democrats were "the devil." She went to see Heinz Kerry to "meet the enemy" and ended up seeing a living, breathy person who spoke with compassion and sincerity and, as a result, the woman voted Democratic for the first time in her life and is now a declared member of the Democratic Party. Where did she get the idea that Heinz Kerry had (spiritual if not physical) horns? From talk radio.

The south is not big on mass transit. People are in the cars. Rural individuals usually have long commutes. After you pass the age of bubble gum pop and are burned out on rap or classic rock, there aren't a lot of choices. (File it under "Media Consolidation" -- not some crayola stereotype.) NPR doesn't reach all areas. (We're not praising NPR.) For many adults who want to be informed that leaves talk radio. Or 'sports' talk radio which trumpeted Bully Boy's war like no one else, featuring non-sports guest such as a History Channel hack who called for the murder of Susan Sarandon -- but you didn't know about that because it required work and not just falling back on easy stereotypes. When Barbara Ehrenreich joins The Idiot Bellafonte in (wrongly) slamming GreenStone Media, she's not just coming off like a fool who will buy any lie The New York Times judges fit to print, she's misunderstanding the importance of media like GreenStone Media. In the south, people complained about bosses that blared Dr. Laura and Rush nonstop at work. Especially offensive when you're one of the groups they're pouring hatred on (African-Americans, gays and lesbians, etc). Complaints to higher ups rarely result in changes (though it does trigger retaliation assignments from the boss you complained on).

That is the reality they live in. It's not just a case of listen to something else (if the boss is playing it in the work space, you have no choice), it's not just a case of listen to a CD (some only have radios in their cars -- the tape player or the CD player may be busted and when you're spending X number on gas for your commute and you've got bills to take care of, luxuries aren't top of your list).

Here's another reality they live under: backstabbers. That can be a Ralph Hall (who finally declared what he always was -- "Republican" -- but spent years wasting monies that could have gone to true Democratic candidates and spent years slamming the Democrats while taking the party's money). That can be a Martin Frost.

Let's stay with Martin Frost for a minute. Is "Democrat" a dirty word? What impression do you send, if you're a Democrat, and you treat it as such? In his losing race in 2004, he wouldn't even include the word "Democrat" on his yard signs. As community member Billie explained to us tonight (she's in DC for the rally as well), that's flat out stupid. In Texas, the ballot lists candidates by party. If someone liked him but assumed he was a Republican (and his 'debate' with Pete Sessions called that into question for many in that area), they might vote straight ticket for the Republican Party and assume they were voting for him. As Billie also pointed out, what do you think if he's managed to fool or trick you during the campaign and you find out in the booth, "He's a Democrat!" You might be offended that he's not a Republican. But more than likely, you were a Democrat who knew that was the party he was with and you were left to wonder why you should vote for someone who can't even declare himself a Democrat in his campaign?

What message does that send to the undecided, to the middle, to Republicans fed up? It says that the Democratic Party is such a waste of time that there's no point in running as a Democrat. What message does that send to young people who haven't even begun to vote? Frost was far from the only Democrat in the south to do that. Nor was he the only one to attack other Democrats. (He's infamous for an attack on Nancy Pelosi that aired on the local NBC station.) It's a funny sort of set of beliefs.


A set similar to what The Nation must have held when they selected the cover of their soon to be on the racks and in the mailboxes latest issues which features a blue pick up truck with the word "DIXIE" scrawled across the back.

That sort of bigotry doesn't endear you to your desired audiences in the south.

The bigotry is rooted in a "F*ck The South" 'humor' post that was promoted by many websites who supposedly are attempting to appeal to all Democrats (we wouldn't say they were trying to appel to the left) and are quite willing to ask for and take your money. It was quite popular in the weeks after the election and appeared all over the place. It wasn't as popular if you lived in the south. If you lived in the south, you were more likely to wonder why the Democratic Party's failures were being blamed on you. Like Dallas, you might note that your county elected an openly gay woman in the 2004 election. (Dallas is from Dallas, Texas.) If you're Betty, you might remember the shock you had when you visited a northern state that didn't just look rural but apparently had never seen a person of color, that must have been why Betty was followed through a grocery store by two of the store's employees. That doesn't happen to her in her home state of Georgia. But there she was, in a so-called progressive, so-called "Blue" state, being eyed like a criminal as she pushed her buggy through the store and being asked for identification when she paid (on a machine) with her ATM card. Her ATM card that required a code and didn't require her handing it to the checker. Betty wonders if The Nation intends to think of a pithy slogan to put on the back of a Honda when they profile the north?

We doubt it because, despite the "Stand Up and Fight" editorial, despite Laura Flanders own tour, the magazine seems unconcerned about the way they regularly scapegoat the south (don't even get us started on redistricting). People are people. They aren't their governments. If that were true, everyone in the US would have to be thrilled that the Bully Boy represents this country. But it's easy to scapegoat.

In the 2005 DNC chair race, a lot of websites were pushing Slimey (and his touched up netroots). The Common Ills didn't. The community endorsed Howard Dean. The reasons for that went to the "'Red' State" series. (C.I. wants it noted that the community made that endorsement.) Howard Dean realized that taking back control meant making every race competative. That didn't slip the attention of the community that had just read the "'Red' State" series. Regardless of where they were from, the series demonstrated that the problems weren't an issue that could be explained with crayolas or markers (though many pundits and 'reporters' tried to act as though they could be).

Money had not been poured into the south in decades. That's the bean counter approach to politics. What's the easiest race to win? Okay, we'll pour money there! And as you do that, year after year, you let the structure die. Joan is fond of pointing out that if John Kerry wanted to windsurf (we're not slamming windsurfing), instead of taking a vacation from the campaign trail, he could have visited her state (Hawaii) which rarely sees a presidential candidate. They did get Al Gore in 2004. Of course Bully Boy also visited. The Republicans are playing long term. They knew there wasn't much chance of a win in Hawaii but Bully Boy was there during the presidential campaign.

The bean counters (the Jimmy Carvilles) want the easiest race possible. They don't want to do the work. They don't want to inspire the grassroots, they don't want to recruit long term voters. They're focused only on one election and swinging the swing voters over. In swing states!

That's strip mining the structure of the party and harming it election cycle after election cycle.
Howard Dean rolled up his sleeves and went to work. He got slammed by some (who are used to having vast sums of monies) for that. But thus far, he's stayed true the belief that a national party must be willing to compete in every state. Billie, Dallas and Diana all note that they didn't vote for Dean in the primary (they were for John Kerry) but Dean actually showed up in Dallas.
Dean came in on a Sunday and spoke outside their City Hall. Went from low on their list of favorites up to second place and someone they wanted to learn more about. Why did they go see Howard Dean? Because not many other candidates managed to show up.

They take the lying stereotype very seriously. Not that long ago, Kat included the summary for Flanders' show in an entry she did at The Common Ills. She didn't think (she says it right now, "I wasn't thinking. I didn't even read it, I just grabbed it with copy and pasted it in there to get the day's guests up at The Common Ills). Kat apologized for that. That was in February and for some, it's only recently stopped being a sore spot. (Kat notes that if you're a member who is offended still, "I am sorry. I didn't read it before I grabbed it and posted it.") Now if Kat, who is beloved by the community, can get in hot water for posting an e-mail highlight of Flanders' show that includes 'Red' state, 'Blue' state, you can imagine the reaction to The Nation.


Southern community members express that they no longer read The Nation because of the repeated insulting stereotypes. We hear that when we visit campuses in the south and some student brings up The Nation. Someone will usually follow the lack of coverage of war resisters and other topics with, "Well, I had to stop reading" -- citing the repeated use of the false 'Red' state stereotype.

So now, now, The Nation wants to reach the country? Now? Will their guide divide the book into 'Blue' and 'Red' states?

It may not matter at this point. They've done enough damage to themselves in the south. Considering that following the election, they knew enough to know it was a false stereotype, it's amazing that they have continued to allow articles to repeat it in issue after issue. Maybe they think readers in the south are masochists who enjoy being pissed on?

There are real liberals out in the south. Not just in isolated pockets. And they work their butts off combatting stereotypes about candidates, about legislation, about rumors . . . Bill Clinton will never die as a source of false rumors repeated as fact on many "sports" radio stations in the south. For those who have never sampled "sports" radio in the south, it's usually a group of men -- the whiney one gets to be the token non-full-on-right winger -- he's for the war, of course -- he'll never say he's voting for a Democrat, but the other males will all put in their plugs for Republican candidates. When not doing that, they're fond of discussing Angie Harmon's vagina -- they use the term "cooter." Issuing death threats to celebrities. Talking up The Shield -- and other Fox shows. They continue to insist that WMDs were found in Iraq. They continue to repeat all the disproven lies.

It's bad enough that many in the south have to suffer that sort of crap from 'local' media, to get insulted and stereotyped by The Nation (whose editiorial board as least once knew better) may qualify as the last straw. If the book proves to be a 'regional book' and do poorly in the south, that's the reason.

"Occupation" or "war"

A debate over terms came up when we spoke with several participants at the DC rally and march. Forty-five people voiced their belief that the term to describe what is going on in Iraq as "occupation" not "war."

You can all it whatever you want. That's free speech. Ourselves, we'll call Iraq "war."

There are a number of reasons for that including the fact that "war" is the popular usage. If others want to fight the battle of transforming the venacular, more power to you. We're not going to. What it reminded us of was when C.I. noted (as The Common Ills) the push to begin calling former CIA agent Valerie Plame "Valerie Plame Wilson" or "Valerie Wilson." Valerie Plame was the name the public accepted. It was the name being used. "Plamegate" had become the popular term for the outing of Valerie Plame.

"War" is the popular usage.

"Occupation" may help draw comparisons to what is happening to the Palestinian people. But just for those already aware. Last Monday, on KPFA's The Morning Show, Philip Maldari spoke with Flashpoints' Nora Barrows-Friedman. A male caller (Mike? Michael?) phoned in to denounce her, to denounce KPFA for airing her 'lies.' He couldn't name one, even when asked, but he was outraged. This wasn't NPR, this was KPFA. Barrows-Friedman explained that she was offering another perspective. That is the reason that KPFA came into existance. But when Nora Barrows-Friedman has to explain herself, you better believe that even the KPFA listening area (and all over the world online), not everyone grasps the abuses suffered by the Palestinians.

"Occupation" also has another popular meaning -- your job. "Occupation" is not in strong enough usage for us to join the rally cry insisting that "war" be replaced with "occupation." For those who feel strongly about the term, we encourage to use it, to fight for its use. Ourselves, we refuse to call those held at Guantanamo "detainees." As C.I. noted, it makes it sound like they've been stopped briefly at customs while re-entering the country. They are "prisoners." We use "prisoners." They haven't had a trial, they haven't been convicted but we feel that five years and counting isn't a "detention," it is "imprisonment." We think "detainees" is a sugar coated word that is used to lull the American public and mitigate outrage over the imprisonment. We feel very strongly about that and we use "prisoners" at all the community websites.

We don't believe that's going to result in a massive outcry of "Change the term to 'prisoners'!" But we can't call the prisoners "detainees" and live with ourselves. If you're someone who feels that way about the term "occupation" replacing "war," we encourage you strongly to use it and advocate that others use it.

"Occupation"? "Colonization" is also valid. "Imperialsim" is also valid. We use those terms and "occupation" (prefaced with "illegal") when we discuss Iraq. But we call, and we will continue to call, what's going on in Iraq a "war."

In this country, "war" conjures an immediate image. "Occupation" less so for too many. We think an argument can be made that "occupation" would help end the war. For instance, one could argue that using "occupation" would allow for the next question to be, "Why are US troops in Iraq for an occupation?"

But that's not our battle. If it's your battle, we wish you luck, we respect your bravery, your passion and your committment. We're not going to slam you for using it.

But we discussed and debated it and, for us, that's a battle that we're not interested in. We're trying to end the war and we're not going to get caught up in a battle over the two terms. We think Bully Boy would love to sell the American people on that term -- it would provide him cover. "I declared war and we were successful," he might say. "Where we had problems was in the occupation following the war."

We do not believe the war ended with a battle in May of 2003. We think a war is going on against the Iraqi people and their system of life (as evidenced by privatization, among other things). We believe the war continues.

We use the term "Ms." when prefacing a female name (if we use a title, most just use a last name or a first name when repeating someone's name after the first time). We know a battle was fought for that term to be used. We know, for instance, The New York Times had to be dragged (kicking and screaming) into finally using that term. (And we know that they continue to call Laura Bush "Mrs. Bush" and that they do so with trophy wives and other women.) There were people who thought that day would never be reached but it was.

A speaker at the DC rally (Carlos Arredondo, Gold Star Families for Peace) gave a poweful speech in DC which utilized the phrase "Gringos out of Iraq!" repeatedly. We enjoyed the speech, we enjoyed his passion. We won't be using that phrase. As Arredondo knows (his son Alex died in Iraq on August 25, 2004 at the age of twenty), the US troops aren't all "gringos." Latinos and Latinas, African-Americans, Asian-Americans and many other races are serving. We loved the speech, we appreciated the passion, we'd applaud it again and consider it a pleasure to hear it again. But, ourselves, we wouldn't use the term/phrase.

Our decision on "occupation" used instead of "war" is not meant to discourage anyone who cares passionately about that battle to give up. There certainly may come a time when "occupation" is the popular term to describe Iraq and no one uses the term "war" (or the majority don't use it). If it matters to you, by all means, use it, fight for it to be used, work to popularize it. We're not saying "unworthy battle," we're saying that it's not one we're going to engage in because we firmly believe "war" is the term.

Should "occupation" become the venacular, would Bully Boy need an authorization act? We're not sure. But that is another concern. Most of all, we're not interested in attempting to educate the public on the term when we're fine with "war." If it's your battle, more power to you and good luck. People need to speak out, with a variety of voices, from a variety of points of view. Democracy demands more voices.

A message from Sanford Levinson (humor)

Hello, I'm Sanford Levinson. I just wrote a dumb ass article on impeachment for The Nation magazine. Elizabeth Holtzman took the discussion up a notch in January 2006. Others, including Lewis Lapham, Dave Lindorff, John Nichols, Barbara Olshansky, Michael Ratner, have presented cases for it as well.

I'm not interested in cases. And not just because I teach law at UT and do visiting professorships. I'm not interested in the examples they cite. I'm certainly not interested about what John Conyers might begin exploring this week. There might have been a time when I was interested.

However, I just returned from Madame Cleo's House of Instant Psychics. With the money fellow faculty members had saved up to send me to a fat farm, I instead learned valuable lessons in tea left reading and for four monthly installments of just $79.99, you can learn the same lessons on hope with the new 8-track boxed set Madame Cleo's House of Instant Psychics Knows You Want These Tapes.

As I did, you will learn many techniques that will end up adding to your pleasure and leisure time. Myself, applying the same technique I used in writing The Nation article, I no longer need waste time grading papers. I now pick up a student's paper, I weigh it in my head, I gaze into the distance, and, without reading a single word, I assign a grade.

You'll learn all about that in Tape 3, "Shortcuts to Happiness and Make My Order Fact Free."

Before Madame Cleo's House of Instant Psychics, I would've had a time writing my article. I would've had to look at the evidence thus far, say about the illegal wire tapping on American citizens, the circumventing of the FISA court, consider what possibilities that judge who resigned from the FISA court could have had for doing so?

I might have had to struggle with treaties and their implications when it comes to illegal wars of choice. I might have been forced to consider how far up the outing of the CIA agent Valerie Plame went.

Instead, I just gazed off into space and used a wonderful tool I will tell you about in a moment to reach my answer: Impeachment is not possible.

The tool? Magic 8 Ball. When you make your final fourth payment of $79.99, Madame Cleo will rush you a Magic 8 Ball via third class mail and it is a valuable tool. With my column, I thought I would have to spend hours thinking, exploring. Instead, I merely shook my Magic 8 Ball, turned it over and there was the answer: "Not at this time."

I probably saved at least 17 hours.

Think of all the time you too can save.

Remember for just four easy payments of $79.99 the 8-track boxed set of Madame Cleo's House of Instant Psychics Knows You Want These Tapes can be yours. You'll also receive, free, at no charge, a Magic 8 Ball. If you are one of the first ten callers, Madame Cleo will throw in a four leaf clover. It's really just a sprig of parsley but pretend it's a four leaf clover. The world is what you make it. Join me and other busy, on the go professionals and order your tapes now.

The Nation Stats

Picking up where we were last edition, we have two issues of The Nation to note this edition.

January 29, 2007 issue

Editorial & Comment
"No To Esclation" (unsigned)
"Media Reform's Movement" (ibid)
William Grider's "A Globalization Offensive"
Mark Hertsgaard's "Green Times"

2 pieces credited to writers -- both pieces by males.

Columns
Calvin Trillin's "Bush Explains His Signing Statements . . ."
Patricia J. Williams' "Zero and Infinity"
AlterPunk's "Iraq and the Sin of Good Judgment"
3 pieces -- 2 males, 1 woman.

Articles
John Nichols' "Newspapers . . . And After?"
Lakshmi Chaudhry's "Mirror, Mirror On The Web"

On the latter, no it's not about people copying other people's pieces. That happens to us, we get mirrored at other sites. They always credit. It would be wrong not to credit, wouldn't it?
2 pieces -- 1 by a male, 1 by a female a.f.a.w.k.

Critics
George Scialabba's "Eight Books on American Democracy After The 2006 Midterms"
Marin Duberman's "Herewitz: Bohemian Los Angeles and the Making of Modern Politics"
Aruther C. Danto's "Brice Marden and Edouard Manet."

3 critiques and, yet again, women aren't even qualified to critique the arts. Take that, memory of Pauline Kael!

Total Score for Issue -- Male: 8 credits; Female: 2 females.

Year to date stats: 43 men have authored (or co-authered) pieces since the first 2007 issue. How many women? 11 women. We're still seeing that nearly four men for every woman figure.

But wait, we have two issues this edition. (Thank the mail delivery for that.)

February 5, 2007 issue

Editorials & Comment
John Nichols' "Obama's Challenge"
David Corn's "Scootergate: The Trial"
William Greider's "EPI's Agenda For Change"

3 pieces, all credited to males

Columns
Calvin Trillin's "A Question and a Follow-up for George W. Bush's Next Press Conference"
Alexander Cockburn's "Get Carter! Iran, Too!"
Katha Pollitt's "Ayatollah D'Souza"
Gary Younge's "The Illogic of Empire."

4 pieces -- 3 males, 1 female

Articles
Scott Sherman's "ACLU v. ACLU"
Jeff Madrick's "Goodbye, Horatio Alger"

2 pieces -- both by males

Critics
Daniel Lazare's "Stuart: The Bloodless Revolution: A Cultural History of Vegetarianism From 1600 to Modern Times"
Eric Foner's "Oakes: The Radical and the Republicans [. . .]"
Ruth Scurr's "Bell: The First Total War [. . .]"
Rae Armantrout's "Framing (poem)"

What do you know, the magazine finally decided to let a woman have a go at a critique (a very rare thing these days) and they even found a poet who is female.

4 pieces -- 2 males, 2 females

Total Score for Issue: 10 males; 3 females.

Year to Date Stats: 53 males; 14 females. We're still left with nearly 4 males for every woman.

It passes for equality to some . . . we guess. If, as of the February 5, 2007 issue, they wanted to play catch up, they'd have to print 39 pieces, all by women, just to do that. (They don't do that, but we'll wait to note the next issue until it arrives in the mail.)

Highlights

These highlights were selected by (and this feature written by) Kat, Cedric, Rebecca, Wally, Betty, Mike and Elaine.

"Tomato and Zucchini Casserole Bake" -- Trina's provides an emergency recipe at the request of the reader and provides commentary on the state of things. Like the need to grow the peace movement on your end because media's not going to help you.

"Watch out for that Cheney! (humor)" & "THIS JUST IN! PUBLIC SAFETY ADVISORY RE: DICK CHENEY!" -- Cedric & Wally's joint-post on what the dour mood of Dick Cheney requires.

"Community reactions to the silence on Watada" -- we liked this piece by C.I. but we're including it because it resulted from a lot of e-mails from independent media. A few noted that they were afraid of independent media's disgusting silence on Watada and other war resisters. None stated they would do anything about it. But all but one wanted C.I. to know that they had feelings too. (The one agreed it was shameful, noted that he fought for the coverage and noted that he'd begin to suspect, like community members, that nothing was going to change.) An added note that Elaine wants made: "C.I. will never allow a 'reply' to go up trashing a member. If you have a problem with something a member said, get used to it. It's the equivalent of a radio call in. Members are allowed to express their opinions and C.I. will never, ever, allow you to have a 'comeback' to a member. You have your own space, don't try to disrespect membership."

"rebecca posting at elaine's site" -- don't install Explorer 7. Mike, Elaine and Rebecca found it wasn't worth it (due to bugs). It put everyone behind in blogging. When it was removed from the three's computers, the result was that they still couldn't log in. That's because when it returns you to Explorer version six, it puts your settings (security) as "Custom level." If you uninstalled and now can't log into your Blogger/Blogspot account or something else, check the security level. (If it's on "custom level," switch it back to default.)

"When it rains it pours" -- Elaine insults this post but we like it. It's open with music, it's got a story to tell (no electricity), Blogger/Blogspot problems, it's got some news commentary and it has a happy ending. What more could you ask for?

"Guns and Butter (Bonnie interviewed Todd Fisher)" -- the infamous Kat post. (We're laughing.) Last week, here, there was a "Roundtable" discussion. A number of people thought Kat was furious with C.I. in it. We've read it over and over and can't see it. But we participated so maybe it reads different? It's also true that roundtables are "rough transcripts" and that, after Cedric and others lost their most important points in a feature that was written here, Dona wants everyone to note their comments that are most important to them before Ava and C.I.'s notes are typed up. She also urges us to suggest cuts from our own comments. The roundtables are always too long to post in full. On typos, because C.I. has no problem owning up, the other big thing is, "C.I. typed it, right?" C.I. never types the roundtable nor does Ava (exception being the December 24, 2006 edition when they were the only ones who do run this site participating -- they put together that edition). That's because they've had to take notes throughout. Kat and Jim have both owned up to their typos before but it's always, "Did C.I. type this?" (C.I.'s actually more likely to note a typo here than at The Common Ills where the entry's are the equivalent of "We're on the air!" C.I. also does a ton of editing and polishing here and doesn't bother to at The Common Ills.) It's a rough transcript. If someone feels they're misquoted (a word missing in the typed version may indicate that while speaking they left that word out), they can add it. (No one's cared enough to do that.) Whoever gets stuck proofing on Tuesday will add a word (in brackets) to note that a word was left out by the speaker -- they do that only if they fear the point is confusing without the word. No words are added to it in the typing. For transitions, a line or two may be dropped (dropped for only that reason). Mike pulled a very lengthy section last week. He was offering various hypotheticals. One, though he didn't know it, actually reflected the experience of one of Elaine's patients (he doesn't know which one, only Elaine does). Elaine explained that there was one point in there that could be misconstrued and he immediately said to pull it. (Mike notes that it was "no loss to the world.")
If the rest of us had made the hypotheticals and included whichever one Mike did, Elaine wouldn't have said a word. But due to the fact that Elaine and Mike are involved, if the patient wondered "Is that me?" the fact that it came from Elaine's boyfriend might have made him wonder even more. Wally just pointed out that C.I.'s stopped looking over the notes in terms of pulling things. Jim thinks C.I. pulls too many things so C.I.'s not even looking at them now before they post. Back to the main story, Rebecca just pointed out, readers were so convinced that Kat was pissed at C.I. that after Kat kept denying it in e-mails to them, they started e-mailing C.I. suggesting, "You need to talk to Kat." C.I. did. There was no problem. Kat explains what she was frustrated with (the roundtable was the first feature we did and she didn't feel that the readers' complaints about Katha Pollitt's column were going to be dealt with). The all caps section was added on Thursday.

"what will become of sarah olson!!!!!!!!!" -- Rebecca (this time at her own site) offers up the tabloid story of our time. The title inspired a feature that goes up here today.

"And the war drags on . . ." -- Ty asked us to note this one by C.I. because e-mails to this site had picked it as the best. Kat's written (in her highlighted post) about how tired C.I. was and how difficult last week was for all the core six plus Kat. Illustrations suddenly wouldn't work (because the Hello! program decided it was no longer going to interface with Blogger/Blogspot). That meant writing a new feature for one that the illustration was integral to and writing a new editorial for the same reason. (Both pieces ran in the print edition.) After the edition went up, hours were spent trying to find a program that would allow images to be posted because Isaiah's comic had to go up. (Members were e-mailing asking where it was.) So there was that headache, there was the 29 hours the core six and Kat had been up and running before the edition finished, there were so many things. The editorial that didn't post here included the Anne Sexton quote (C.I. had picked it out) so Jim said, "Use it." Kat said even she wondered if there would be an "And the war drags on . . ." going up. "But at the last minute, C.I. rallied, and what was a disappointing entry suddenly came to life." Ty says readers of this site were quite clear that they agreed with the journalist and the military person who said Olson wasn't being asked to do anything unusual.

'Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Bully Boy's Baby War Steps"' -- the comic that finally went up. It looks different than they usually do and Isaiah didn't color it "harsher." He says that's the new program that C.I.'s using to post. ("And that's not a complaint. I can adapt to it.") The new program is Flickr and Jess told us yesterday that some visitors saw the icon on The Common Ills and went there. They wrote they were disappointed because they thought C.I. was posting photos. Nope, it's just for the illustrations. (And Kat says, "Even the UK Gurus couldn't figure out why it wouldn't work and how C.I. suddenly got it to work. They were on the phone trying to help. So don't be surprised if illustrations take longer to post, I'm not sure C.I. even knows what the mystery step done was.") Wally adds the program is "Flickr" -- there's no "e" missing, that's how it's spelled.

"Law & Disorder, Anthony Arnove, Michael Schwartz" -- Mike covers a segment of Law and Disorder that featured Anthony Arnove. We all respect him and to "BE HONEST," we think if some left pundits would familiarize themselves with his work, they would grasp what the peace movement is trying to do -- though grasping it might prevent them from doing their one sentence slams. (As Kat called it in her highlighted post above, that sentece was apparently "the full coverage" on Iraq or maybe "the fool's coverage" on Iraq for the year.)

"The Wino Friedman" -- Betty's latest chapter. Thomas Friedman is back in Betinna's home (not by choice). Ty asked that we talk about the title because there were two e-mails on it. When we were all together this summer, Betty's oldest started learning guitar and wanting to hear a lot of guitar music because he's a "pro" you understand. (We're joking. But he is taking lessons and he's very good. He's stuck with it.) So every day he wanted a CD with guitar. He'd ask C.I. to find a CD with guitar. On one of them was a song called "The Rebel Jesus" -- on a Jackson Browne CD. Kat and Elaine say that's on The Best of Jackson Browne (single disc) and it may be on another CD as well. So Betty's son loved that song. He wanted to know the chords and as soon as C.I. showed them to him, he worked on that thing like crazy. In two days, he had a good fake version of it. He kept working and he's got a pretty good version of it down. He sings and plays it still. If he's up when Betty and C.I. are on the phone with each other, he grabs his guitar and insists he get the phone to show how much he's improved. (We won't say "for a kid" he's good. Because he's just good period.) So he gets the phone, puts it down and starts singing and playing "The Rebel Jesus." In his early days, when he was still learning it, he'd make up his own words when he couldn't remember them and do it real soft and then bear down on "The Rebel Jesus." So Betty and C.I. have been using that with each other for some time. "The Idiot Bellafonte," "The Wino Friedman" and others titles and monickers are a nod to "The Rebel Jesus" and all the work Betty's oldest son has done to learning to master that song.

"Dick Cheney does the hard press (humor)" & "THIS JUST IN! DICK CHENEY GOES A'WASHING!" -- Ty said a question came in on why Wally & Cedric always get in the highlights with two entries each? Because they're joint posts. When they were posted in full here, highlights (back before the switch to Beta), that was done as well. They're short posts and they're joint posts. Joint-posts always get highlighted. We like working together. They probably get slighted because they do joint-posts pretty much every day, Monday through Friday, and we only choose two. This one explains how Dick Cheney knows all about hogwash.

"Catching Up " -- Seth returns from blogging for the first time since August. He's covering gay portrayals on soap operas.

Editorial: On the useless who know better

On Saturday in the US, there were 22 deaths of US troops announced (that includes the 13 who died in a helicopter, it's been confirmed that they were all troops). Not quite the cakewalk but it never was.

The illegal war is going to hit the four-year mark (in March) and the number of people dying in Iraq will only continue to soar. US troops need to leave.

Now someone gave Katha Pollitt the impression (or maybe she just grabbed it -- wrongly like when she declares no one is "spiritual," they are religious) that the peace movement has stated that, when US troops leave, love will bloom in Iraq, IEDs will turn to flowers, mortars to ice cream and there's bound to be a love-in there.

Maybe it's not fair to blame her for being so off the mark -- she may get her impressions from The Nation. No one in this community has ever claimed it won't be a messy, bloody period when US troops withdraw. We have maintained (and we're far from alone on this) that US forces fuel the resistance, feed the violence and are part of the problem.

Let's speak slow for the Pollitts. No one likes to be occupied. (Maybe we should number to make it easier for nonreaders to follow?) That's any country. An occupation fuels violence. That's true of all occupations. Just having foreign troops patrolling your country makes you angry.

Now when you realize how many innocent Iraqis have been killed at checkpoints, when you grasp how humiliating the dead of night house raids (conducted by US forces) have been, when you know that one section of your country (the heavily fortified Green Zone in Baghdad) has all the basic utilities working reliably while you deal with electricity being off for more hours than its on, while you make do with non-potable water, resentment breeds.

When you look around you and don't see with your own eye any reconstruction but you do see efforts to control your country's industries, you get angry.

When your sister, brother, parent, friend dies, you get angry.

If that's confusing to any Pollitt out there, these are the reasons some oppose the escalation. Now maybe if you take a whole year off from Iraq, maybe if you've got time to whine at how mean CODEPINK is for bird dogging Hillary Clinton but that big heart of yours that can find sympathy for Hillary Clinton turns to stone when the issue the rape and murder of 14-year-old Abeer, maybe then you right write a nasty little slam that's not only beneath you but calls your entire work into question.

But in the real world, where people pay attention, where they vote in their own states and not in Connecticut because, though they live in New York, they just have to get Joe Lieberman out of office, in that real world, people follow the war. And they've learned to do so without lefty columnists who let whole years pass without ever addressing Iraq while writing for political outlets.

And The Real World Left (comoing soon to MTV) grasps fully that (a) US troops fuel the resentment, breed the hostility and (b) that, no, it won't be "Peace In The Valley" (the Carole King song) when US troops leave.

The Real World Left grasps that all deaths matter, not just the show death of a tyrant. The Real World Left understands that anyone who can't cover war resisters isn't really all that left to begin with and anyone wasting everyone's time, year after year, with a printed article on what to donate during the holidays in an issue that subscribers receive on or right after New Year's Eve really isn't doing anything to help anyone.

The Real World Left wants to end the war. It's not surprising Pollitt doesn't know about them or know what they think -- the magazine she writes for refuses to cover them.

Well that's not quite true. They did slam CODEPINK. In fact Pollitt did that. And Liza Featherstone became the first Nation writer to write about a demonstration in her little slam at the movement. And of course Peter Rothberg got his thong in a wad when CODEPINK dared to speak out at the event co-sponsored by The Nation (though they didn't reveal that when Rothberg was slamming CODEPINK). Rothberg's thong was so far up his ass that he couldn't even name CODEPINK in his lecture on manners. (Someone should give him a lecture on Grown Men Who Sport Peter Pan Haircuts.)

When you think about Pollitt's column on the bird dogging of Hillary and how CODEPINK should find a male to bird dog, remember that Pollitt's not written one word in 2006 or 2007 about how women have pretty much disappeared from the pages of her own magazine. Currently, they're at publishing one female contributor for every 4 males. If Pollitt wants to worry about whether or not women are being treated fairly, she can start by looking at her own magazine's sorry record of publishing women.

We actually like Pollitt. And even her writing in 2006 would have been fine . . . if this were 1996 and not 2006 when the nation has two declared wars ongoing and Bully Boy's trigger happy to start more. But though we like Pollitt, we're not her mommy, we're not her daddy. We're not going to pat her on the head, coo and hand her a cookie because she's doing perfectly acceptable work for 1996. We're calling everyone on their shit now.

We don't have time to play. A lot of the professional left does. They bore you with one thing after another. They can't cover CODEPINK except to trash them. CODEPINK's accomplishments for 2006 are quite clear. What did The Nation accomplish other than bleeding subscribers?

We're not in the mood for it. We're not in the mood for Barbara Ehrenreich's repeating falsehoods she read in The New York Times to question the mission of GreenStone Media. We wouldn't be in the mood on a good day but we're especially not in the mood when Ehrenreich's under some mistaken impression that she did something amazing in 2006. What? That so cute piece on Hurricane Katrina that made your teeth ache? Ehrenreich, what have you done that was serious in print in 2006? In print, don't bring up your long overdue haircut.

What you have been in the pages of The Progressive during 2006 is useless. And we don't have the time for it.

We don't have time for Nation staff that's flat out rude to women in radio appearences, treating them as if they're stupid for (a) pointing out that the oil law in Iraq will matter and will effect people or (b) pointing out that there is no center-left to the James Baker Circle Jerk.

In 2006, we didn't just see the usual cast of useless rejects. We saw some of the finest voices waste their own time and ours. Maybe they couldn't shut up about Judith Miller while staying silent on Dexter Filkins and Michael Gordon. Maybe they were the crowd (it's a huge one) who couldn't even mention Abeer. Or maybe they were among the many rushing to turn off the lights in the hopes that war resisters wouldn't know they were home.

We know the dying continues in Iraq. We know the only Middle East peace plan the Bully Boy's had is "DESTROY!" We know that peace is a feminist issue.

But maybe that's an issue for women to cover and little girls prefer to scribble "Don't you be mean to Hillary!" notes?

We know there's a female in charge of The Nation and we know this is at a time when women are disappearing from the pages of the magazine. We know the "arts"/critic section in the lastest issue to pop up in our mailboxes features four pieces -- all by men. Apparently women can't even handle the arts now. We know it's disgusting.

It's not just Iraq, it's a whole lot of things and independent media needs to stop kidding themselves that they do an amazing job. In 2006, they did a shit poor job. It's not as though they ignored Iraq to offer strong coverage on another topic. We know Pollitt wrote a column to note the passing of The Ego Of Us All but didn't find the time to write about Coretta Scott King.

When you've already instructed the NAACP that they shouldn't worry about media images, maybe you need to back that questionable claim up by proving that a White person like youself can cover people of color. (And to be frank, the column making that questionable claim read grossly uninformed at best and racist at worst.)

Independent media's been babied, burped and put to bed for far too long. It's time they went beyond baby steps. The country is involved in two wars, this "Hmm, what will I write about today? Democratic Party suggestions or a list? I know! I'll combine it into a list of Democratic Party suggestions!" isn't cutting it.

So to the Pollitts and Ehrenreichs, we're not surprised that AlterPunk's a joke. He will die one. But when strong voices who know better slack for a year, we are shocked.

How many deaths will it take to wake up independent media as a whole?

How many years of illegal war?

The war's not ending because you chose to ignore it.

And Ehren Watada will be court-martialed on February 5th. Yeah, we're grasping, we're really grasping, the true focus of independent media: White, male, elected official.

TV: The new Steve McQueen?

Crossing Jordan opened season six last Sunday with Jordan (Jill Hennessy) determined to prove she didn't kill her lover. She's no wallflower, Jordan Cavnaugh. When the show was about to debut and in its earliest days, NBC promos would feature Garbage's "I'm Only Happy When It Rains" and if a character can be summed up in song, that was a perfect match.

I'm only happy when it rains
I'm only happy when its complicated
And though I know you can't appreciate it
I'm only happy when it rains

You know I love it when the news is bad
And why it feels so good to feel so sad
I'm only happy when it rains

That is medical examiner Jordan Cavanaugh, the heart of the show. All things rest on Hennessy's shoulders and whether you're supposed to buy that Jordan may have committed murder or whether you're supposed to buy her approach to sex (get your clothes off, get on my bed, get busy, now get out) or whatever, Hennessy makes it believable.

Created by Tim Kring, Crossing Jordan delivered what earlier shows (Dear Detective, Mrs. Columbo) had only hinted at, a complex female character in the lead. Some have called it a CSI rip-off. They're the sort that see a man with an acoustic guitar and start screaming, "Next Dylan!" Crossing Jordan's not a cookie-cutter show. It's more like Quincy than it is CSI. Like Quincy, Jordan can become so fixated on a case, that it threatens her own career (and, frequently, her own life). She pursues clues with all the zeal of a Talmudic scholar. There's no time for niceties or office politics which is why she is frequently not working.

For a show that's danced around NBC's schedule repeatedly, Crossing Jordan has managed to deliver some solid ratings. Its thanks for that was similar to the thanks given Emmy winner Patricia Arquette's Medium, pull it off the schedule. The schedule was announced last spring and then everyone started fretting that Studio 60 Yada Yada Yada couldn't hold its own on its announced night (Thursday). What followed was monkeying around and both Medium and Crossing Jordan were benched. Is it underlining the obvious to note that both shows are the only hour long programs NBC has starring a woman?

Is it carping to note that the Water Cooler Set is attempting to come to the rescue of the ratings failure, audience rejected, Studio 60 Yada Yada Yada by telling you that the 'genius' has solved the problem: ROMANCE! The show just needed romance!

(What the show needed was someone to cut the dialogue by about two-thirds and get to the point.)

What NBC needs is new blood in the offices. Doesn't have to be young blood, but it needs to be new. They've trashed their schedule, trashed their ratings. Of the big three, they have the most to be ashamed of for Fall 2006. They had no faith in Heroes (which is why we grabbed it for our first review). They refused to heed warnings that reality wouldn't sandwich in between ER and an hour of comedies (even though The Apprentice had already made that point quite clear). And they've acted like little boys, not men (it's a very male network today, behind the scenes) because boys might need their own club house, but a network is in the business of making money which means bringing in lots of viewers -- not just men.

It was hilarious when they turned down the ad for the Dixie Chicks documentary (Shut Up and Sing) by falling back on the nonsense that they couldn't afford to offend when they had done nothing but offend as they took the formerly number one ranked network to the bottom of the barrel. They were warned, there were many loud arguments, but they knew best. So they cleared the women off the schedule (Hennessy and Arquette) and rushed in one male starrer after another. (Don't tip them off, they really think 30 Rock is Alec Baldwin's show.) It's as though the current crew can't recall the names Courtney Cox-Arquette, Jennifer Aniston, Lisa Kudrow, Shelly Long, Lisa Bonet . . . and seem to believe that the recent glory streak for NBC revolved around, and was due solely to, men.

If you don't get what happened, note ABC added Ugly Betty and Men In Trees. Note that CBS has The New Old Christine and women carrying their end on the new sitcoms. NBC? Well if you live for helpmates, you might be able to take comfort in the fact that Studio 60 Yada Yada Yada and Friday Night Lights feature women as helpmates.

And how stupid, really, how stupid do you have to be to think a full season of new episodes can revolve around high school football? Forget whether the show is good or not, football's an old man's sport. Basketball long ago overtook it as the sport for young men. But when you've got men who never accomplished as boys, they're all over the idea despite the TV track record the football setting had. You might also note the obvious trash cluttering the schedule (with more due shortly), the 'reality' TV. The Apprentice was never a blockbuster. The only reality blockbuster NBC ever had was Weakest Link. For a season, it was all over the place. The very strange female host was weirdly compelling. But the Men To Boyz of NBC couldn't grasp that, even when it was pointed out to them repeatedly, so they go with male comics.

Make no mistake, no network disowns their female driven hits as often as CBS. But no network's ever had a team as hateful towards women as the current crew at NBC. Discussing meetings, women will voice the complaints that they were ignored and dismissed. Well why should life in the offices be any different than what makes it onscreen?

They're in panic mode now and they should be. They've destroyed the network. They thought if their aged, White, male tastes liked it, surely it should draw in all viewers, especially that coveted 18-40 set. It didn't quite work out that way.

So after all the male driven shows crash and burn, the NBC 'brains' realize they have to do something. They rush Medium back to air, they go after the show about the casting of Grease and, oh yeah, they toss Crossing Jordan back on air.

It's painful to watch the new episodes of Crossing Jordan because you'll grasp just how good the show is and realize just how out of touch the network is. For starters, the show has a stronger look than it ever has. They're using new camera angles and give credit to the hair department. The biggest beneficiary there is Jerry O'Connell. The new angles give his character Woody a bearing that he doesn't have when your using standard angles and standard lighting and the work hair's doing (also noticeable especially on Hennessy). . . . We're not joking here about the hair. We watched on Sunday and Monday morning were calling to find out what hair product was being used. Jerry O'Connell always look better than he films but for the first time on the camera, he actually looks more than 'boyish.' That's the new visual look of the show and that's the work of the hair department.

If you think we're making too much of the visuals, check it out yourself. It's got a stronger look than anything else NBC offers. It's a professional look and, you better believe, it's one that others will copy. This isn't the flat look of all the shows Dickie Wolf squeeze out, this is the sort of quality visual look you expect from a film.

Telling a friend we wanted to see if the look worked on regular TV (we're aware that not everyone has HighDef), we got a copy of another episode and the look works on regular TV as well. Not only should Crossing Jordan have made the fall schedule because it's an audience favorite and a strong show, anyone with a brain would have put it on just to note the look. They would have sold the look as a hook.

Along with the look, you've got a strong cast. It's not an ensemble because Hennessy is the lead. A character can leave on any of the CSI's and the shows will continue. You can't have Crossing Jordan without Hennesy, even if you try to change the title. Without the gravity she's given Jordan, the others wouldn't work. (We'd argue that was proven when the series did an episode without her character.) But in the supporting roles, you've got a group of people who've meshed perfectly onscreen. The camera can go anywhere and they're in character. Whether they're the focus of the shot or caught on the edges, you see them as Bug, Lily, Nigel, Garret. As Lu, Leslie Bibb has already manged mesh and is doing the kind of strong work she's not done since Popular.

When the show got bumped for the fall, our first question to friends with the show was, "How bad is it?" Now in its sixth season, it would be normal if the program was lagging. We were told that wasn't the case and, a very rare thing, if you check out the show you'll see that wasn't hype.

You may wonder why The Apprentice preceeds it but, if you do, just remember der Donald has picked a public feud with a woman and, in its earliest stages, the NBC brass just knew that would be a ratings pick me up for the tired show. (Hasn't worked out that way and NBC should have long ago repeated Trump's catch phrase back to him.)

Last Sunday, Jordan was trying to find her lover's killer. Lu was trying to get her busted, Woody was suspended and under investigation (Lu and Woody are both police officers) and Garret, Bug, Nigel and Lily were trying to help Joradn prove she was innocent. Jordan confronted a dirty judge about the bribes he'd taken, the judge killed himself, Nigel managed to use forensics to track down the real killer, whom Jordan was already confronting, the whole thing involved a mining company attempting to cover up their own crimes, you had two locations utilized throughout (Boston, the show's setting, and DC, where Jordan had gone, with Garret following, to find the killer) and you had a new character introduced. If that seems like a great deal, it was. And we didn't even mention Lily's having to explain the wedding that wasn't.

All of that (and actually more) went down without it feeling forced, without exhausting you. And that's a testament to everyone in front of and behind the cameras.

A friend who acts on a cookie-cutter crime drama asked mid-week what we were reviewing and we said we'd probably tackle Crossing Jordan. She couldn't stop marveling over Hennessy's peformance in the role and, noting our review of Moronic Mars, insisted we point out that Jordan, like Moronic, has the weight of the world on her shoulders but, "when you have a real actress," the audience never forgets that fact "because the actress doesn't." Our reply was we wish she hadn't said it so we could claim it as our own. (She said go ahead, but we'll give her credit.) That really gets to what keeps the show compelling. Hennessy's doesn't pull the punches in a scene that makes Jordan come off bad. (Jordan can be rude, she can be self-involved.) She's committed to the character. It's the type of character a woman rarely gets to play as lead. Every now and then, something along these lines will come up for a guest role and then they'll bring the actress back due to audience response only they'll water her down because if she's popular that must mean the character is "likeable."

For six seasons, Hennessy's played the character without seeking short cuts that say, "I'm really likeable. Honest." She hasn't played to the audience. Early on in the show, there was an icy scene with her maternal grandmother, she let the audience feel sorry (and possibly stunned) for Jordan. American audiences can see a complicated female character . . . on PBS when Prime Detective airs. Not a whole lot of other times.

We asked our friend if she'd ever told Hennessy how much she enjoys her performance and she responded, "I wouldn't dare. She's like the Steve McQueen of TV." And we think that sums up Jordan almost as well as "I'm Only Happy When It Rains."

If you're a fan of the show you're probably already watching (unless the bouncing all over the schedule left you dizzy). If you haven't, carve out just five minutes on a Sunday night to check out the new look of the show.

Finally, last week we reviewed Ugly Betty and Ty has noted how many e-mails came in on that. If you're one of the ones who enjoy the show or just interested in reading another feminist take on it, please check out an article on Ugly Betty by Yeid M. Rivero (Ms. magazine). It's in the Winter 2007 issue which just went on sale.