So I got tattled on. Did you like that? I never did. I was of the opinion that there was nothing worse, in grade school, than a tattle tale. Now granted, there were no school shootings at my elementary school. So we recently did a feature ("Editorial: No to War on Iran") and, in it, we noted that Senator Bernie Sanders' campaign Twitter feed did not mention Iran going back X days.
And this led to a tattle tale running to C.I. with an e-mail prompting this response from C.I.:
An angry e-mail to the public account notes that Tweet and says THIRD should have included it in "Editorial: No to War on Iran." Should they have?
First, note my use of "they." I didn't help write that editorial. I was one of the reasons Jim included in his note to the readers that there was no piece on Julian Assange. I do not believe Julian should be persecuted. I also don't believe that after working hours and hours on the weekend, we should have to come back on a Monday or a Tuesday or a Wednesday night to finish the edition. I don't want to spend that kind of time. So if there's not a Julian article after we've worked forever, too bad.
Second, as I read the editorial, they are talking about "candidates" for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination. Yes, Bernie is a candidate. But that Tweets is not from his campaign Twitter feed, it's from his US Senator Twitter feed. They are clear that they are looking at the campaign Twitter feeds. If Bernie's posting on his Senator account, good. But if he's campaigning and he believes in what he's saying, he needs to carry it over to his campaign Twitter feed.
The angry e-mailer also feels that "You have done nothing to promote Bernie!"
I didn't realize it was my job to promote Bernie. Because it's not. He has been mentioned in snapshots. I will make an effort to include the female candidates when possible. But even they don't get as much attention here as I wish they did.
I haven't decided who I will support in the primaries. US House Rep Tulsi Gabbard's campaign comes closest to addressing the issues that matter to me. But I haven't endorsed her. I could easily and gladly vote for the following if they got the nomination: Tulsi, Bernie Sanders, Marianne Williamson, Kirsten Gillibrand, Beto O'Rourke and Mike Gravel. I could vote for a few others running without holding my nose. But I haven't decided who to support and don't know that I need to.
If, for example, Bernie's your candidate of choice, you probably don't want me supporting him. With the exception of John Kerry in 2004, no one I supported in the primary ever got the nomination. Bill Clinton beat Jerry, for example. Mondale wasn't my choice in the 1984 primary. Over and over, my choice never gets the nomination. I'll slide the e-mail over to Jim who -- I'm sure -- will respond to it. (And you can e-mail THIRD via the public account here, we have more people going through the e-mails. But, again, I had no part in that editorial.)
Our e-mail address here is thethirdestatesundayreview@yahoo.com and we do check it but you are probably better off e-mailing common_ills@yahoo.com because that account is worked by over ten people a day.
I think C.I. addressed the issues in her response. I'll address an issue she raised: Being very tired of weekends with never-ending writing sessions. Ava and C.I. got back this past weekend around noon Saturday and they were feeling more than a little under the weather having picked up a bug. After three hours of discussion about the edition, they stated they would have their piece written before noon on Monday (today). They were sick to their stomachs.
As it turned out, they did have their piece done by noon (and it's a great piece).
But the delays? I don't know how we address that. I know I'm the biggest part of the problem there. Dona's saying we need more list pieces and more short pieces. She's probably right.
