History Spotlight

We're calling this "History Spotlight" and it touches on an issue that pops up in our roundtable that will post shortly. From "Professor" C.I., here's history you should be aware of.

"Governmental spying/snooping"
Let's note that Wally, Rebecca, Mike and Elaine are posting to their sites and note also that they are covering the issue of the government spying on domestic groups and individuals with no known links to terrorism.What we know currently is that the NSA and the Pentagon have been spying on an assortments of groups. Since freedom of information requests by the ACLU are still being fought, it's a good guess (and then some) that there's quite a bit more.

From the ACLU's "ACLU Demands Records About Warrantless Spying by National Security Agency:"

NEW YORK - The American Civil Liberties Union today submitted records requests under the Freedom of Information Act to the National Security Agency (NSA), the Department of Justice and the Central Intelligence Agency for information about the NSA's program of warrantless spying on Americans, which was authorized by President Bush.
"Requiring a judge to approve a wiretap is not a nicety that can be avoided by presidential decree - it is a fundamental rule of American democracy," said Ann Beeson, Associate Legal Director of the ACLU. The requests submitted today seek all records about "the policies, procedures and/or practices of the National Security Agency for gathering information through warrantless electronic surveillance and/or warrantless physical searches in the United States ..." Information received by the organization will be made public on its Web site. In response to the public outcry over widespread political surveillance during the 1970s, Congress enacted legislation known as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to prevent the President from engaging in precisely this kind of warrantless domestic surveillance, said the ACLU.
"Even FISA wiretaps and secret searches require limited judicial review," added Beeson. "The government ignored the system authorized by Congress in favor of limitless power to spy on Americans." The New York Times has reported that at least one judge on the secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court questioned whether the information obtained under the N.S.A. program was being improperly used by the Administration for unlimited spying.
The FOIAs are the latest phase of a broader ACLU campaign to reveal and limit unchecked government spying on Americans in the name of national security. To expose FBI monitoring of political and religious groups in the United States, the ACLU filed FOIAs in 20 states on behalf of over 150 organizations and individuals. Today the ACLU made public the latest documents obtained in the project which confirm that the FBI is using counterterrorism resources to monitor and infiltrate advocacy groups including PETA, Greenpeace, the American Arab Anti Defamation Committee the ACLU itself. www­.aclu.org/safefree/spying/23124prs20051220.html

In his McCarthyism Watch (at The Progressive), Matthew Rothschild has charted disturbing incidents for several years now. For tonight's entry, we're utilizing Ruth Rosen's The World Split Open (pp. 241 - 243 unless otherwise noted) which was published in 2000. Rosen's detailing an earlier dark period, the period that led to the creation of the FISA courts, when earlier bullies were out of control and violating the rights of Americans.

This period led to the Church and Pike Committees. Though sometimes referred to (the Church Committee more often than the Pike Committee) in contemporary articles, there's little attempt to offer any perspective or summary. If that's out of some belief that "everyone" knows of this period, the belief's mistaken. For over a year now both committees have popped up in entries here and everytime that's happened, there have been e-mails asking what the committees were about.

We're extracting from Rosen's book (which is a book worth reading so if you enjoy the excerpts, please consider checking your local libaries or bookstores -- and, at least as far as I know, there's no Homeland Security watchlist for this book -- as of yet) to focus on the actions of the government in spying on the women's movement and narrowing down the focus to Rosen's section on the Church Committee. The Church Committe was chaired by Frank Church and its official name was United States Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities. The Committee investigated numerous abuses but our focus tonight is the spying on citizens. (Background on the Church Committee can be found at Wikipedia.)

From Ruth Rosen's The World Split Open:

Surveillance of the women's movement began as part of the Cointelpro program, an FBI domestic surveillance program begun in 1956. In 1968, J. Edgar Hoover redefined the Cointelpro mission: "It was to 'neutralize' the effectiveness of civil rights, New Left, antiwar, and black liberation groups." Between 1968- and 1971, Cointelpro infiltrated both the New Left and the women's movement. Although the FBI did not officially employ women agents until after Hoover's death in 1972, its regional offices paid dozens -- more likely hundreds -- of female informants to infiltrate the women's movement. FBI director Hoover remained adamant that constant surveillance of the women's movement be maintained, in his words, for the "internal security of the nation."

Women's liberation was an internal threat then and PETA is today. Or the Quakers, Greenpeace, those who check out Mao's Little Red Book, The Catholic Worker . . . and those are just some of the "internal threats" that we know of.

Back to Rosen:

Americans first heard about the Cointelpro program and learned something of its scope when a "Citizens Committee to Investigate the FBI" broke into the FBI office in Media, Pennsylvania, in March 1971, removed secret files, and subsequently leaked them to the press. Soon after Cointelpro was exposed, several agents resigned and blew the whistle on the agency's crimes against ordinary citizens. After Hoover's death in 1972, the agency issued a public apology and vowed to reform itself. In 1975, Senator Frank Church held congressional hearings that further exposed the program and confirmed some of the New Left's and women's movement's worst nightmares.

There was a committe prior to the Church Committee (the Pike Committee would follow the Church Committee) -- the Rockefeller Committee. Though some research from that comittee would aid the Church Committee, the Rockefeller Committee is not usually considered a serious committee. (Do your own research to determine why. It's beyond the scope of this entry.)

Back to Rosen:

The Church Committee interviewed FBI officials and agents who had orchestrated the infiltration of the women's movement -- not only in Chicago, New York, and Berkeley, but in Kansas City, Columbus, Lawrence, Cleveland, Seattle, Gainesville, Florida, and dozens of other small towns and cities all over the country. Here is an excerpt of Senator Church's interrogation of James B. Adams, associate director of the FBI Intelligence Division, about the infiltration of the women's movement.

Does it all seem strangely familiar? If you've followed Matthew Rothschild's McCarthyism Watch it probably does. Back to Rosen's book:

The Chairman: Now, the last few questions I would like to put to you, Mr. Adams, have to do with some confusion in my mind concerning the purpose of the FBI in monitoring the Women's Liberation Movement. What was the purpose of that surveillance? Why were you involved in monitoring that movement?
Mr. Adams: It was basically, as I recall, I have not reviewed the files, but from the information that I have aquired, it would indicate there were groups that were believed to be infiltrating and attempting to exert control over it.
The Chairman: But you never did find, did you, that the Women's Liberation Movement was seriously infiltrated, influenced or controlled by Communists?
Mr. Adams: No . . . It was a very independent group.
The Chairman: Well, we are trying to keep the country that way.
Mr. Adams: That's right. . . .
The Chairman: I call your attention to this ["Origins, Aims and Purposes," a description of the women's liberation movement in Baltimore, Maryland] because it seems to typify the whole problem of this generalized kind of surveillance over the activities of American citizens. Here is the report. If you read with me this paragraph:
The women's liberation movement in Baltimor Md. began during the summer of 1968. There was no structure or parent organization. There were no rules or plan to go by. It started out as a group therapy session with young women who were eithere lonely or confined to the home with small children, getting together to talk out their problems. Along with this they wanted a purpose and that was to be free women from the humdrum existence of being only a wife and mother. They wanted their husbands to share in the housework and in raising their children. They also wanted to go out and work in what kind of jobs they wanted and not be discriminated [against] as women.
Now, can you find anything in that report that in any way suggest that these women were engaged in improper or unlawful activity? . . . I think you would agree with me that women do have the right to get together to talk about humdrum existence and equal opportunities with men and equal opportunities for work in society, don't they? that is not a subversive activity.
Mr. Adams: Well, but . . . interwoven with the Women's Liberation Movement goal for equal rights for women, there was an advocacy certainly of militancy and violence in achieving their goals.
The Chairman: I am told by the staff that . . . the only other thing . . . was that those women had affiliation with an organization that had protested the war in Baltimore.
Mr. Adams: I think there were some other items.
Mr. Chairman: That is the only other association that we have been able to determine. Apparently the Women's Liberation Movement is no longer under suspicion by the FBI and the case has been closed. What happens when the case is closed? Are those women's names still left in the files? Are they forevermore contained?
Mr. Adams: Yes.
The Chairman: In the system?
Mr. Adams: Yes.

They still can be "contained" to the public. They can appear redacted when released to the public. Of course, on the other end, they aren't redacted. On the other end, a data base, a crude one, still exists. A crude one will probably exist from spying under the Bully Boy. Crude only because of the fact that the FBI still can't get their computer issues in order.

Back to Rosen:

The FBI's view of the women's movement is summarized in a 1973 report listing the national women's newspaper Off Our Backs as "ARMED AND DANGEROUS -- EXTREME."

You can use the link. The language may offend some (it doesn't me but those viewing on work computers have been warned). It isn't and wasn't "armed." Dangerous? Only to those who would attack the public's right to dissent or to gather or to be informed.

I want to close with a quote from Letty Pogrebin that Rosen notes (on page 259, from Ms.' "The FBI Was Watching You" in 1977):

The important fact is that they tailed us and invaded our privacy, both psychic and physical. They snooped. They pressed their candid camera against a one-way mirror to our private lives. It seems impossible not to feel outrage at these flagrant violations of the rights of free speech, association and assembly. The FBI conducted a criminal investigation against women who were not accused of any crimes. This activity is unthinkable in a democracy.


ruth rosen
the world split open
feminism
snoopgate
spying
cointelpro
frank church
church committee
aclu
matthew rothschild
mccarthyism watch
fisa
letty pogrebin

Music Spotlight: Kat on No Secrets

If you've missed it, Kat is about to conclude three days of musical commentary at The Common Ills later today. Kat's a brave voice taking on the conventional wisdoms and writing with passion about music. She'll never be found flipping through The New Republic in an attempt to figure out what the "hot" topic in music is. She's smart enough to grasp that New Republican is hardly the source for music, "hot" or otherwise. She goes her own way. Which is why her voice is so damn important. We love Kat. We love her writing. Here's the first of the three commentaries she's provided in the last few days. She did this one for Common Ills community member Eli and you can check out Wally's entry which explains why Eli picked this album for Kat to review.

"Kat's Korner: Breaking through the 'conventional truths' with No Secrets"
[Note: This is Kat's latest and the first of three musical commentaries that will run here each morning through Sunday. Kat reviewed Carly Simon's Moonlight Serenade last July.]

1972. Thirty-three years ago.

November. The election had taken place. Nixon had won and democracy had lost out. At least for a little while.

Carly Simon had campaigned for the Democratic candidate for president, George McGovern. Now her latest album was coming out. No Secrets.

Maybe the album could be read another way if McGovern had won? No Secrets . . . because Nixon's out of the White House!

Tricky Dick had more secrets than Keith Richards had guitar licks.The album reflected a mood in the country, a restless desire, a refusal to follow the conventions and stay silent. Of the ten songs, Carly wrote seven by herself. On two, Jacob Brackman provided the lyrics to Carly's music. One song was written by new hubbie James Taylor.

Even that cover song fit the mood of the album because Carly was singing the song ("Night Owl") without altering the words. "I'm a night owl, honey . . ." A few holdouts still tsked-tsked when that sort of statement came from a woman back then. (The holdouts appear to have been cloned with a vengeance these days.)

Brackman was a lyricist very in tune with Simon's approach. They'd hit before with "That's The Way I've Always Heard It Should Be." Because that song seems to so closely reflect Carly's own life, many assume she wrote the lyrics. Wrong. She wrote the music. (Actually wrote it as an intended theme for a special called Who Killed Lake Erie?) On No Secrets, Brackman penned the lyrics to "The Carter Family" (no, not that Carter family -- it was 1972, not 1976) and "It Was So Easy Then."

Richard Perry produced the album. Carly played piano and acoustic guitar. And, of course, she sang on the album. If you look at the tracks and have even a loose grasp of Carly's music, you'll probably immediately think "Mick Jagger!" He sings backup on the monster hit "You're So Vain." (Three weeks at number one, for those in need of statistics.) Here's some trivia you can toss out that only the dedicated know: Paul & Linda McCartney sing backup on "It Was So Easy Then."

So that's your stats and your trivia. Let's get to what's important.

No Secrets. That was the album title, from track five "We Have No Secrets." In that song, Carly takes a hard look at the secrets couples can share and how "Sometimes I wish, Oft times I wish, That I never, never knew, Some of those secrets of yours." The Watergate burglary had been in the news. In January of 1973, more news would break. But those invested in a sick relationship with Nixon, they were determined to struggle through life blind. (Some would manage to do so for at least two more years. Some never faced reality and have remained in the dark throughout.)

Again, it was a mood. It's a mood we've seen too much of today. Only cure for it is truth.

No Secrets told the truth about one female's experiences. Not via lyrics that were too clever and fey for their own good, not in words that required a decoder ring. Carly's often stated in interviews that she was more of a reporter. She's that, with the telling eye of a novelist. And she sets out to chart a woman's experience in album form.

You really didn't have that sort of voice on the charts back then. Bless Laura Nyro, but she was always being pursued by the devil to the point that you felt one slip of her high heels and he'd pounce on her. Joni Mitchell seemed to be following Laura two steps behind but running towards something, not away from it. Over in the valley (well, canyon), Carole King was trying to get centered. All three were important voices but it was left to a fourth woman (Carly) to carve out the terrority we'd become more familiar with as years went by.

Tell all my girlfriends
Not to wait for me
Daddy, I'm no virgin
I said I've already waited too long.

Sexuality. Upfront. Spoken to a parent. (Carly's father Richard Simon had passed away many years prior to this song being released, let alone written.) How many young women back then were starting to live confident lives but either still pretending to have the Ann Marie & Donald relationship (honest Mom & Dad, no sex!) that was the bulk of That Girl (the bulk, watch closely) or else entering into some sort of unstated "don't ask, don't tell" precursor where parents didn't raise the issue and the adult children (daughters) pretended that their "virtue" was still intact?

The father figure pops up again in the frightening "Embrace Me, You Child." As Carly notes in that song, "Then one night Daddy died and went to heaven, And God came down to earth and slipped away." Old "truths" were falling apart. Joni Mitchell ("libertine" -- as she's often stated her critics dismissed her as) wrote, early on, as if they never existed. Carly charted their demise.

Three songs conjure wistful memories in words and music. "It Was So Easy Then" looks back to a time when life's biggest requirement was that you "took such cares to step never on the cracks, no only in the squares." By 1972, you were leaving the boxes, leaving the assigned roles. You weren't just stepping on the crack, you were living on it as, similar to today, the nation was splintering. A second song in this wistful mood, "When You Close Your Eyes," declares "You've been walking on the edge of a dream" which immeditately conjures thoughts of the margins -- women's liberation, gay liberation, black power, et al. The struggles, the dreams, were ("Big suprise") things you actively took part in. Point, you weren't dreaming. And "you were never really meant to sleep" -- the world was waking up. In the third of the songs, "His Friends Are More Than Fond of Robin," we learn of a woman who watches the object of her affections from the sidelines ("because I'm shy and can't demand it"). The world was changing, you were a part of it, this was no dream, this was reality. What would reality bring? Some advocating change were nervous about those prospects. (With good reason as the years would prove out since the same struggles are still being fought.)

"The Carter Family" (lyrics by Brackman) traces the changes in one woman's lifetime at that point in history: a friendship that lasted fourteen year ("from rag dolls to brassiers"), the old ways -- represented by a grandmother urging comformity ("nag at me to straighten up my spine, to act respectful . . .") and the arrival of self-determination ("You used to make me moan in bed but that can't be enough") and owning your decisions ("And I find I miss you more than I'd ever have guessed").

Aretha Franklin had already made her plea for "Respect" (while willing to turn over all her money) in the previous decade singing an Otis Redding song. Carly and others built on that. Which is obvious with the song everyone knows, "You're So Vain" (written solely by Carly). Earlier, Nancy Sinatra had pouted that her boots would walk all over you ("one of these days"), Leslie Gore had whimpered that it was her party and, sob-sob-sob, she could cry if she wanted to. Certainly the rough girls of the Shangri-Las had fought for the right of any woman (they were called girls then or "young ladies") to take up with a guy "from the wrong side of the tracks" (provided he faded from the picture quickly -- usually via death).

In the context of what had come before, "You're So Vain" was a thunder bolt -- the way Alanis Morissette's "You Ought To Know" would be two decades later. Which only shows you how narrow the range women are allowed to express and find chart success with was and still is. Carly was a woman who'd been "had" ("several years ago"). Despite his promises that "he'd never leave," he did leave her but remained in her social orbit. A few decades prior, it would have been cause to stitch the scarlet letter on your sweater or maybe your poodle skirt. Carly was navigating new waters.The song's not about "you." It's about the damage his ego caused. And Carly's still there (as Alanis would sing years later) "to remind you of the mess you left when you went away."

Other songwriters would be viewed as "confessional." It's hard to tell exactly what some were confessing to other than a fondness for word play. Decades later, many of the males of this group would have indirectly confessed to being eternal teenagers who breathlessly wrote of each new relationship and each new breakup as though nothing similar had ever happened in their lives before. Is there anything sadder than a man of forty and older, receding hairline or not, writing yet again of being in love for the very first time?

Of the female singer-songwriters who broke onto the pop charts at that time, Carly was the most upfront -- sexually and otherwise. That was partly due to her alto which had a comforting, lived in tone from the start and would prove to be, as she dropped the Cat Stevens influences, a remarkably flexible instrument. If Grace Slick sung of Alice in Wonderland (or drugs, take your pick) with stone faced determination and voice, Carly's voice moved like a slinky cat. Physically, it was the voice of liberation. Her writer's voice was that as well as she tracked the personal that some of her peers (males and women determined to be accepted on male terms) preferred to avoid. Armed with that voice, her telling eye (when she writes lyrics) and a strong sense of melody, she's carved out a career that's led to awards (Oscar, Grammys, Golden Globe) and a loyal audience. "Carved out" because she's done it by going with topics others weren't keen to explore at that time. (For instance, "Fair Weather Father.") And done it with a voice that was strong and playful. The voice would never make for an easily rewritten cautionary tale (a trick way too much musical "scholarship" on Janis Joplin pulled off for far too long).

Two released albums preceeded No Secrets, Carly Simon and Anticipation. On both, the talent is there and moments of inspiration. But she's still attempting to find her voice (both physically and lyrically). On No Secrets, she nails it. She is a woman making sense of her world. Not a gender neutral female trying to ease into the boy's club, not a frilly, dainty thing ready to tremble and take direction. The same searching quality that would serve her best work ("Jesse," "Let The River Run," "Coming Around Again," "Scar," et al.) is on full display here. (Along with some amazing music -- and check out the drums throughout.)

Carly's confessional nature may be seen by some detractors as "compulsive" but it can just as easily be seen as brave. "Let all the dreamers wake the nation" she once sang (and wrote). Her body of work has been a wake up call to popular music that a woman has just as many sides as any man, that the men who can be hailed as brave while writing of "universal" topics like sports aren't as "expanisve" as so many critics assume they are. There was always an underbelly to the world of pop and when a woman tapped into that for a song, she usually ended up with a hit under her belt. Carly's explored the realities that weren't stock topics and she's done so fearlessly.

No Secrets broke through the 'conventional truths' of 1972 and 1973. We could use some more of that bravery today. Truth to power in 2006.

carly simon
no secrets
kats korner
the common ills

Public Radio you can use from Ruth's Morning Edition Report

A highlight of our weekends is always reading Ruth's latest Ruth's Morning Edition Report. We especially enjoy it when she provides commentary (as she did last week taking on Bill O'Lielly's claims of a war on Christmas). This week, she provides some commentary on Time's Joe Klein.
While we're noting this, we'll also note our thanks to Ruth for participating in our roundtable on 2006 which will go up shortly. Finally, we'll note that if you think to get your news on radio, you're dependent on NPR, you really need to read Ruth's reports. There's a whole world of public radio that never feels the need to get Cokie Roberts or Juan Williams' opinions on anything. Explore it with Ruth.



"Ruth's Morning Edition Report"
Ruth: CounterSpin, which I listen to on WBAI, featured Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, and journalist Michael Massing of The New York Review of Books and Columbia Journalism Review. Before the interview segments, the show provided a run down of "the week's press" as it does each week.

What is Time Magazine's Joe Klein's issues with teachers? Did he wet himself in the second grade and some teacher didn't have a clean pair of children's under pants on hand? In a recent column, Joe Klein praises California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger for "taking on public school teachers." Mr. Klein apparently believes that the real terrorists are to be found at our chalkboards across the country. Mr. Klein also had praise for the Bully Boy for his freedom lip service regarding Lebanon, Senator Lindsey Grahm for his efforts to privatize Social Security and Senator Obama Barrak for his condemning advocacy groups opposed to Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts' nomination. Why does Mr. Klein hate us for our freedoms?

Another item addressed a recent study by NPR ombudsman Jeffrey Dvorkin who studied the use of think tanks by NPR. In 2004, FAIR, the parent organization of CounterSpin, studied NPR's use of think tanks and concluded that it relied on right-of-center think tanks. Now Mr. Dvorkin has come to similar conclusions, one year later. Mr. Dvorkin found that 239 guests were from right-wing think tanks and that 141 guests were from left-wing think tanks. To reach those totals, Mr. Dvorkin had to classify the centrist Brookings Institute and the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) as left-wing. "Without them, the study would have shown zero progressive think tanks," Steve Rendell noted. However, the CSIS has "historically been rather conservative" and, when arguing FAIR's 2004 study, Mr. Dvorkin stated that FAIR's classification of CSIS was wrong because "they have left and right on staff." Which means that in 2004, Mr. Dvorkin felt that CSIS was, at best, a centrist think tank; however, one year later, Mr. Dvorkin feels that CSIS is now left-wing one.

A lot can, apparently, happen in a year. Or perhaps Mr. Dvorkin changed his own classification because, as Mr. Rendell noted, "Without them [Brookings and CSIS], the study would have shown zero progressive think tanks."

Janine Jackson was on this week. Ms. Jackson, Mr. Rendall and Peter Hart host CounterSpin with two appearing on air each week. Two apologies are in order. First, apologies to Mr. Rendall whose name I have spelled "Rendell" in the past. Reading through the latest issue of Extra!, also put out by FAIR, I saw the C-Span article that had been highlighted here this week and noticed the correct spelling of Mr. Rendall's name. My apologies for having mispelled it in the past. The second apology goes to Ms. Jackson and members who enjoy her commentaries. I enjoy them too but I rarely note them because she just tickles me. This week, I swore I would take notes and include her. I know she addressed an academic study by two professors. I remember that they were claiming liberal bias in the media. But her delivery always delights me and I find myself laughing and not taking notes. So my apologies to Ms. Jackson and members who enjoy her commentaries that have e-mailed asking why I rarely go over them here. It is because I am laughing too hard to take notes.

Michael Ratner was interviewed by Steve Rendall and they discussed a number of issues in the news. This included the NSA tapping of American citizens and the administration's attempts to justify this spying. Mr. Ratner found the argument "absurd. It's an assertion of power that goes way beyond anything I've seen. . . . It's really the usurping of our Constitution and our checks and balances. . . . It's criminal and impeachable."

Mr. Ratner tied the administration's argument to earlier administration arguments. Such as when President Dwight Eisenhower attempted to seize steel mills during the Korean war and the Supreme Court found that he did not have that power and President Richard Nixon's argument that could "wiretap without a warrant domestic activists opposing the war" which was also found to be a power that he did not have.Mr. Rendall raised the issue of the New York Times sitting on the story of the N.S.A. tapping for over a year and Mr. Ratner found that "chicken hearted" and wondered, "How they could have waited a year on something the president was saying 'I am above the law'?"

On the issue of domestic spying, the Pentagon spying on activists, Mr. Ratner traced that back to the actions of then Attorney General John Ashcroft following 9/11. He noted that we are now back to fighting battles that we won in the seventies and eighties all over again.

The so-called torture ban that has been so widely applauded by the mainstream media was not something that Mr. Ratner found praise worthy. He noted that the ban had "always been there" but that the McCain amendment now provides a loophole where, if you torture and if there is a government memo or legal opinion authorizing the torture, the person conducting torture now has a legal out should their be criminal or civil prosecution for his or her actions.

The Grahm-Levin amdendment also raised issues because it strips Guantanamo detainees of their right to be heard in the courts and allows them to be held for any length of time at the whim of the executive branch and based upon "evidence" that resulted from torture.

Ms. Jackson conducted the next interview which was with journalist Michael Massing. Mr. Massing had previously explored external issues that impact the press and is currently exploring internal issues such as "the need for access. Access journalism has become a big part of our reporting . . . and often inhibits them [the press] from doing the kind of reporting that we need."

He also addressed self-censorship and felt that following 9/11 there was self-censoship within the profession and that it was "a big factor that doesn't get talked about in the profession." He noted that the press on Iraq has not given as much attention to issues such as checkpoints in Iraq despite the number of Iraqis killed as a result of misunderstanding hand signals and other issues. This is a story that is a component of life in Iraq but it is not addressed in a manner that reflects how common place the tragic events are.

Ms. Jackson asked about the idea of balance and, while defending the model itself, Mr. Massing took issue with a number of distortions it can provide. "Journalists too often don't let their readers know what the reality is," Mr. Massing stated. "Readers are often sort of not clued in as to what the reality is."

Touching on the reaction of the press to poverty in New Orleans, Ms. Jackson noted that they seemed to be "discovering poverty. Are most reporters out of touch?"

Mr. Massing felt that as the profession has become more professionalized and more prestigious, many reporters have been cut off from various groups of people that earlier generations would have mixed with. He noted the D.C. correspondents dinner and how news organizations and the elected and appointed officials easily mix at that. He also noted that many reporters in D.C. send their children to the same schools as the officials.

Pacifica's WBAI is the station I listen to CounterSpin on as well as Law & Disorder which aired Monday. [Note WBAI archived broadcasts can be accessed here.] The hosts of Law & Disorder are Michael Ratner, Dalia Hashad, Michael Smith and Heidi Bohosian. Unless Law & Disorder is now a weekly show, which would please me, I am unable to figure out the schedule.

The issue of air marshalls moving from planes to land travel was discussed. Trains and ferries will now be their scope as well and they will be working in larger teams. Also addressed was what to do when the F.B.I. comes calling? "If the F.B.I. wants to talk to you, call a lawyer," Michael Ratner stated. "Call the ACLU, the National Lawyers Guild, the Center for Constitonal Rights." The ACLU provides a pamphlet you can download, in various languages, entitled "Know Your Rights." In addition, you can request one at (212) 549-2517.

Two guests addressed developments in Mumia Abu-Jamal's case. The third circuit has agreed to "to hear some of the infractions" involved in the case that resulted in Mr. Abu-Jamal being on death row. The two guests were Jaff Mcakler and Robert R. Bryan, both attornies of Mr. Abu-Jamal, who addressed the issues the third circuit appears ready to hear which included the prosecutor instructing the jury that "You can feel okay about finding him guilty because even if you do find him guilty, he's going to have appeal after appeal" which may have resulted in the jury dismissing reasonable doubt and the burden of proof being lowered. In addition racial bias will be reviewed. As has long been part of the public record, a court stenographer has stated she overheard the judge stating, "Yeah, I'm going to help fry the n___."

A third attorney was brought on, Bill Moffet, to discuss his successful defense of professor Sami Al-Arian. Professor Al-Arian is the man whom the government attempted to get terrorism convictions on due to his support for Palestinian causes. Mr. Moffet stated that rather than play on the government's field, the defense he argued was based upon First Amendment rights and that the jury's verdicts supported those grounds.

Lori e-mailed to ask if I heard "Woodstock" played during one of the moments between segments. I did hear the song but I believe it was Joni Mitchell's version from her Ladies of the Canyon album due to the piano. However, it may have been Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young's version.

The final guests were the authors of Actions Speak Louder Than Bumper Stickers which is a book featuring cathy bumper stickers with facts on the back of each one. Some of the slogans on the bumper stickers include:

"One Person One Vote Offer Not Valid In Florida"
Mark Twain's "Suppose You Were An Idiot, Suppose You Were A Member of Congress. But I Repeat Myself."
"Democrats Think That The Glass Is Full, Republicans Think That The Glass Is Their's."

KPFA's The Morning Show featured Michael Ratner as a guest on Thursday. Philip Maldari conducted the interview and they addressed the topics of spying and torture. The Jose Padilla case was also addressed. The administration wanted to avoid the Supreme Court ruling on whether Mr. Padilla could be an enemy combantant so they moved him from a military tribunal to a civilian court, dropped the enemy combantant tag and attempted to force the courts to play along. "The court said you are toying with us," Mr. Ratner noted commenting on the court's refusal to grant the change in venue. "This was a serious blow to the administration." The issues of whether or not Padilla can be transferred from the category of enemy combantant to a criminal court and whether or not the government can detain citizens without trial will now be addressed by the Supreme Court.

Later in the program, Andrea Lewis interviewed two authors, Arielle Eckstut and David Henry Sterry, who provided tips for would be authors. The authors have written Putting Your Passion Into Print: Get Your Book Published Successfully! and the interview is filled with information and humor. Ms. Lewis worked in publishing so not only were her questions informed, she was also able to provide publishing suggestions as well. If you missed Thursday's broadcast, you also missed Jennifer Stone's commentary which included discussing the Mary Poppins books and the author of the series, P. L. Travers. The Morning Show airs on KPFA Mondays through Friday and is a two hour blend of news, public interest, arts and much more. Cindy e-mailed requesting that members check out the show and to remember that you can listen to it (and all Pacifica programs) online.

counterspin
janine jackson
steve rendall
michael ratner
michael massing
wbai
law and disorder
kpfa
the morning show
andrea lewis
ruths morning edition report
the common ills
radio
public radio
pacifica
jennifer stone
philip maldari
arielle eckstut
david henry sterry

Blog Spotlight: Elaine on medical ethics

When we were still doing our news review, one issue that was touched upon was the issue of the ethics of the medical professionals participating with interrogations. Elaine and C.I. felt very strongly about the issue and we once had a commentary for the news review by Elaine that we ran out of time for. We kept hoping to include it at a future date but, to quote John Lennon, life is what happens while you're busy making other plans. So when Elaine tackled this issue, we knew we'd have to highlight it because it's an important one.

"Expectations (personal and professional)"

Happy holidays. I hope you are enjoying the weekend whether it's a time for celebration or not. Gatherings this time of year can be filled with expectations and frustrations so if you're struggling or worried, do not feel that you are alone or that "It's just you." Rebecca wrote about this last night in her "christmas and no nerves of steel" post. If you think you can relate to that, please check it out. If you don't think it has anything to do with you, please consider reading it because it probably will reflect someone in any gathering. Expectations, both real and imagined, weigh heavy this time of year.

Also check out Mike's Mikey Likes It! because he's writing at the same time. We're in his room and he's on his computer and I'm on my laptop. Which is a good time to say thank you to the McKinnon family for inviting me to spend the holidays with them. (A thank you to Nina, Mike's girlfriend, as well.) I know I noted this at The Third Estate Sunday Review and, I believe, also at Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude while I was filling in for Rebecca, but I'm not sure it's up here. So if anyone's wondering why I'm spending Christmas with the McKinnons or spent Thanksgiving with C.I., my parents died while I was a young teenager. My only surviving family is a very wonderful older brother who now lives in Europe. Originally, he would fly in for the holidays but, quite honestly, the two of us together at the holidays can sometimes be depressing. He now makes a point to avoid the holidays. I usually grab Thanksgiving with C.I. who is a friend of many years and I'm welcome (C.I. would say "more than welcome") to grab Christmas as well. However, the guest list at Christmas triples from the list for Thanksgiving and I'll usually either spend Christmas alone, with a date's family or with friends. This year I'm very fortunate to be spending it with friends and I thank the McKinnon's for their hospitality.Now here are two items from Democracy Now! Friday that you're hopefully already aware of but are worth noting.

Federal Judge Calls Gitmo Detentions "Unlawful" (Democracy Now!)
This news on Guantanamo Bay: the Washington Post is reporting a federal judge has ruled the detention of two ethnic Uighurs at the U.S. prison is "unlawful", but says he does not have the authority to release them. On Thursday, U.S. District Judge James Robertson said the government has taken too long to release Abu Bakker Qassim and Adel Abdu Hakim -- who have been jailed for four years. The two have been cleared for release, but not returned to China where they would likely face torture or execution.. The two men are among nine detainees that remain at Guantanamo despite having been declared "no longer enemy combatants." In his ruling, Judge Robertson wrote: "The government's use of the Kafka-esque term 'no longer enemy combatants' deliberately begs the question of whether these petitioners ever were enemy combatants."

Justice Dept. Admits Spy Program Does Not Comply With FISA (Democracy Now!):
The disclosure comes as the Justice Department has admitted that the President's eavesdropping program does not comply with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Along with another wiretapping statute, FISA defines itself as: "the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance . . . may be conducted." The admission came in a letter to Congress Thursday.

Mike's providing commentary on those so be sure to check out his site; I'm just noting them because there's something else I want to focus on.

I'm utilizing two articles for this, an Associated Press article that ran in most papers (including the New York Times) and an article from The Nation. The link I provide to the AP article is care of the Mercury News which does not require registration to be read. With regards to The Nation, you need to be a subscriber to read the article online. I don't subscribe to The Nation. That's not a slap at that magazine. I subscribe to periodicals and journals for my profession. Otherwise, I utilize book stores. (Sadly, a very large chain.) I prefer to purchase magazines. I usually purchase every issue of The Nation (so subscribing would be cheaper) but I enjoy walking up to the sales counter with my purchases as well as having the ability not to purchase an issue of any magazine containing a story or stories that I have no interest in (or may have a strong objection to). One of the things my father was big on was taking us to the bookstore every Saturday. We'd be encouraged to pick out a book or magazine (toys weren't as prevalent at bookstores when I was a child and videos -- videotapes or DVD -- had yet to emerge). From there, we'd go to lunch at my father's favorite deli. (My mother, in case you're wondering, had Saturday afternoon's "off." This was something that began after I was born when my mother, rightly, gave an ultimatum that she couldn't work full time, be the primary person responsible for keeping the house clean and raise two children without any break. For the first seven years of my brother's life she had struggled to be everything to everyone. After I was born, she stayed home three weeks with me before returning to work and quickly realized that attempting to do everything would drive her crazy. Fortunately, my father was smart enough to grasp both that she was serious and that she did, indeed, deserve at least five hours to herself once a week.)

I thought I was just attempting to make sure that no Nation reader took it as an insult that I didn't subsribe (I do read the magazine regularly); however, probably due to the season, I obviously wanted to take a trip down memory lane. Thanks to everyone reading for their indulgence.

Thank you as well to C.I. because I didn't pack the issue, the December 26th issue devoted to exploring torture, and the article isn't available to nonsubscribers online. C.I. scanned the article and e-mailed it to me. The link I'll provide for the article does allow you to read the opening.

Starting Thursday, and continuing through today, various papers have run an obit onHeinrich Gross who passed away December 15th at the age of 90. The name may not be familiar to you. "Heinrich Gross, accused of Nazi experiments" is the headline the AP article ran under in the San Jose Mercury News. In the New York Times, on Thursday, the article ran under the heading "Heinrich Gross, 90, Psychiatrist At Nazi Death Clinic in Austria."

"Heinrich Gross, accused of Nazi experiments: PROMINENT DOCTOR ESCAPED PROSECUTION" (William J. Cole, Associated Press):
Dr. Heinrich Gross, a psychiatrist who worked at a clinic where the Nazis killed and conducted cruel experiments on thousands of children, died Dec. 15, his family announced Thursday. He was 90.Dr. Gross, who was implicated in nine deaths as part of a Nazi plot to eliminate "worthless lives,'' had escaped trial in March after a court ruled he suffered from severe dementia. No cause of death was given in a brief statement issued by his family.
Dr. Gross was a leading doctor in Vienna's infamous Am Spiegelgrund clinic. Historians and survivors of the clinic had accused him of killing or taking part in the clinic's experiments on thousands of children deemed by the Nazis to be physically, mentally or otherwise unfit for Adolf Hitler's vision of a perfect world.

The article explains how three times, Gross (I'm refusing to call him "Doctor") was tried but escaped conviction. In the 50s, "the case was thrown out because of a legal technicality." In the eighties, a case was "dismissed because the 30-year statute of limitations on manslaughter had expired." When Gross stood trial in 2000, he escaped conviction because he was found "unfit for trial because of advanced dementia."

Gross is accused (in my opinion, for good reason) of perverting science and his oath to aid the Nazis in torture and killings. This is a perversion of his profession.

He misused science. (Gross maintained his innocence until the end, again, my opinion is he was guilty.) He forsook his oath, he betrayed the principle of first do no harm. He placed a government's interest over the interests of of providing care. He allowed politics to trump medicine. We can look back in horror (and should) but despite all the "never again"s that greeted the revelations of the crimes committed under the Nazi regimes (torture, genocide, etc.), we shouldn't take comfort in the fact that we all learned something from it.That's not the case. Were it the case, the revelations in Jane Mayer's "The Experiment" (The New Yorker) wouldn't have been so appalling. I've addressed this topic at The Third Estate Sunday Review and C.I.'s addressed it several times at The Common Ills.

"Jane Mayer's 'The Experiment' (The New Yorker)" (The Common Ills):
I'll try to summarize the article but that's not an easy task. Mayer's taken a trip to Guantanamo Bay. It was an orchestrated trip by the military. At one point, a prisoner starts speaking to her of how he's been treated and her military guide hustles her out of the area quickly and to the charges made by the prisoner offers a "joke" about how the prisoner can speak English pretty well.
Time and again, Mayer's told there's no problem, that it's isolated individuals when there are problems. But via other sources, she's able to make an argument that the incidents are not only not isolated, they're the result of research and planning.SERE comes into the story. SERE is a military unit that pops up in the aftermath of WWII. It was supposed to gather information that would help American troops to withstand pressure (and torture) if they were captured. SERE stands for Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape. Originally created for the Air Force, post Vietnam, it grows to include the Navy and the Army.
At Guantamano, there are "bisquits." Bisquits is "military jargon" for Behavioral Science Consultation Teams. These behavioral scientists appear to be utilizing techniques developed to help American troops resist during capture in an inverse manner -- using techniques to break the imprisoned at Guantamano down.
This raises ethical issues (which Mayer deals with, this is a summary of her article). Apparently prisoners medical files (containing information gathered by doctors) are raided to help with brainstorming ideas. Is someone afraid of the dark? Well, let's use that.
While the bisquists (Behavioral Science Consultation Teams) have apparent free access to medical files, that's not the case for everyone. Dr. John S. Edmondson ("a Navy captain who oversees the facility's medical command") claims that, "I believe we've complied with the requests [for medical records] that have reached me." Rob Kirsh ("who represents six Guantanamo detaineeds") has a paper trail that proves otherwise. Even with waivers from his clients, his requests for their medical records has been denied in multiple letters "from the Justice Department." Regarding this denial, Mayer quotes Arthur Caplan ("a bioethicist at the University of Pennsylvania") who notes, "Prisoners, even terrorists, have the right to their medical records, according to federal laws, common laws, the American Medical Association, and court trials."
With various documents and various sources (including a graduate of SERE who had posted at Juan Cole's Informed Comment) "The Experiment" gathers together the "isolated incidents" and demonstrates a pattern (in my reading of the article).
Techniques and actions used on American soldiers to keep them from "cracking" (my term, not Mayer's) are apparently now being used to "crack" (see previous parenthetical) prisoners.
The SERE program has always been shrouded in the secrecy of national security. Which is not unlike the attempts to find out what the Bully Boy did or did not authorize (or Donald Rumsfeld for that matter).
Would someone crack to stop a woman from being raped? Well, hey, let's try that. That appears to be the motivation and why one prisoner was told if he talked the (fake) rape would stop. There's also the case of a man and a woman having sex in a computer room next to an interrogation room with the door open.
How does that get approved? "Give it up for your country?" I'm not quite sure and I'm trying very hard not to interject my own thoughts here and provide a summary of the article so I'll move on.
There have been people pointing out that the actions were unethical or illegal or immoral (or two or all three). One person who speaks to Mayer, former FBI official who was at Guantanamo, states that he and other FBI agents did not want to participate in these actions:
Some of these techniques, I don't want to see, or be part of. I took an oath to the Constitution to uphold the laws against enemies both inside the U.S. and out. The D.O.D. [Department of Defense] guy got really upset. He said he took the oath, too. I told him that we must have different interpretations.
Concerns are raised regarding "force drift." That's when "interrogators encountering resistance begin to lose the ability to restrain themselves." If you'll think of it in terms of parenting, you'll relate that to the "power struggle." There's also a "seductive" component of these techniques, as an attorney for several prisoners -- Marc Falkoff -- notes. Falkoff asserts that "a mass suicide attempt at Guantanamo, in August 2003, in which two dozens or so detainees tried to hang or strangle themselves, was provoked by Koran mistreatment . . ."
That's a SERE technique. Only on American soil, while "testing" American soldiers, they used a Bible. They might tear pages out of it or kick it around or some other method. But it was developed here with the Bible. (Again, I'm holding my tongue and just attempting to summarize.)
The question is posed (and I'd argue throughout the article) by at least one person in the article of what are we becoming? What does it say about us when we "do things that our enemies do, like using torture?"
We'll close out this summary by noting that doctors have participated as "bisquits" (though not all "bisquits" are doctors -- some are p.h.d.s) with the comments of Jonathan Moreno (bioethicist):
Guantanamo is going to haunt us for a long time. The Hippocratic oath is the oldest ethical code we have. We might abandon our morality about other professions. But the medical profession is sort of the last gasp. If we give that up, we've given up our core values.What does it say about us when we accept this behavior?

A debate has raged in the medical professions largely behind closed doors. The Nation addresses this debate.

"The Silence of the Doctors" (Jonathan H. Marks, The Nation):
After 9/11 some American healthcare personnel were once again asked to step into the breach and help Army interrogators conduct aggressive interrogations. They have, among others, Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller -- former camp commander at Guantanamo Bay -- to thank for this. Miller considered the participation of Behavioral Science Consultation Teams -- known colloquially as "Biscuits" -- to be an "essential" part of the interrogation process. Having introduced the first Biscuit to the Guantanamo facility in late 2002, Miller urged the deployment of a similar team at Abu Ghraib in late 2003. These Biscuits were staffed at various times by psychologists and/or psychiatrists.
[. . .]
One of the functions of Biscuit health professionals is to help interrogators tailor interrogation "stressors" to the personality of each detainee -- particularly "high-value detainees." In one example -- reported by Neil [A.] Lewis in the New York Times -- interrogators were told by a Biscuit that a detainee's medical files recorded his severe phobia of the dark, and the Biscuit suggested ways that fear could be manipulated to make the detainees cooperate.
[. . .]
According to a resolution of the General Assembly adopted without dissent in 1982, it is a "gross contravention of medical ethics" for health professionals to be complicit in torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. They are also required not to use their knowledge and skills to assist with an interrogation that may adversely affect a detainee's health and is not in accordance with international law. Medical personnel who helped design and monitor aggressive interrogations like those [. . .] have undoubtedly fallen afoul of this ethical mandate.

Marks notes that the American Psychiatric Association, Physicians for Human Rights, and Physicians for Social Responsibility have spoken out against medical professional participating in programs that aid torture; however, the American Medical Association and the American Psychological Association have struggled (to put it mildly) to find their voice. As C.I. noted (no link because I'm rushing to finish this) at some point, Marks does as well, the American Psychological Association included on its task force to explore this issue "psychologists who work or have worked for the military -- in some cases at SERE schools."

As I stated, I'm rushing. (I'm attending mass with the McKinnons shortly.) But to nutshell this, what is going on is unacceptable. The death of Heinrich Gross should be an occasion to review how a climate for perversion of medical ethics can take place and it should make us take a serious look at what road we're currently on when medical professionals are using their skills and knowledge to assist interrogators in devising 'pressure points' (my term) for interrogations. That is a perversion of the profession. If we allow this perversion to continue, we aid in the creation of a climate that allowed Gross and others actions to be seen as worthy to their own government, as useful, as helping. We have duties and obligations. We take an oath. We betray that, our training and our very reason for existance when we put serving a governmental policy ahead of the aims of our profession.

In closing, I'll recommend that you check out "Kat's Korner: Breaking through the 'conventional truths' with No Secrets" and "Kat's Korner: Blunt's got the goods" which are two musical commentaries Kat has provided and a third one will go up Sunday at The Common Ills so look for that as well.

Happy Holidays and Peace on Earth.

Blg Spotlight: Cedric explains it all

As noted last edition, we were unable to work our statement on the olive branch with thorns that managed to screw up an edition we had ready to go two Sundays ago. As noted last edition, Cedric was working on a post about the whole thing. Here it is.

"Three Cool Old Guys and about megabully"
So here's the thing, I started this on Saturday and finished it a few minutes ago. The time may flip because of that. I'm taking Jim's advice about the links. I think there are enough here. If I wasn't rushing for time, I would provide more.
Thank you to Three Cool Old Guys and all their friends who were so encouraging Thursday night when we tried out our caroling program. We really want to do a great job and we appreciated all the input on what six songs we should perform in church Christmas Day. I also thank them for their public praise (and C.I. for mentioning them) Friday.
They get a kick out of it when they get a mention here or at The Common Ills. Or at the gina & krista round-robin. Now Gina and Krista are great and I'll give them their due and then some. But they really deserve more due than that. I have Three Cool Old Guys and Gina & Krista's permission to announce this. If you read your Friday round-robin, you know they each wrote about the first time it hit them that color was an issue. Not the first time their parents had told them but the first time when they saw something that told the truth about a society still pretending.
I really loved their feature. And Gina & Krista persuaded them to make it a monthly feature for the round-robin. So once a month, you'll get perspectives from Three Cool Old Guys on how much we've changed as a society or how much we haven't and on where we are headed. Those men have lived long lives and are a wealth of history and information so I'm really thrilled about this.
And I've been on their backs for them to do that on a website of their own because I think it's important. How much have I been on their backs? They've taken to telling me to "get up out my grill." That makes me laugh because it's funny to hear them say that and also because, since they got online, they are able to stay in touch with their families and specifically their grandkids.
That means so much to them and I'm really glad that's happened.
But even with me, their friend, urging them to do a site, they didn't want to. I told them if it was a technical thing, I would help them out and I know C.I. would be available for any phone call. But they didn't want to. So I offered they could write it in an e-mail and I'd set up the site and copy and paste their e-mails into posts their.
They didn't want that.
In the time since they've become Common Ills members and started getting the round-robin, they've seen what Gina and Krista are able to do in that and they've agreed with C.I.'s remarks that it's a more private way to have a conversation. They did an interview with Gina and Krista for the round-robin and never told me that they'd asked Gina and Krista if they might be interested in any writing?
Of course G&K were. So this was the first of their monthly contributions this week. They wanted to see how they felt about it after it was in the round-robin and they're pretty pleased with themselves as they should be. So with their permission and Gina & Krista's permission, let me be the first to note that this is now a monthly feature of the round-robin.
When we were talking this morning, they explained why they were more comfortable with this format. They feel the round-robin is supportive and geared towards a supportive audience. They really aren't in the mood for "flamers" who would post racist remarks or for the nonsense that people like C.I. and Ava have to put up with (all the threats for silly stuff like not presenting Wentworth Miller as the second coming of acting).
They agreed that their was a need to share their experiences as Black men who lived before the civil rights movement and lived after. But they weren't comfortable talking about specifics where someone could attack them or someone in their family. You know one of them spoke of seeing their strong father have to "play the fool" when a White employer started hollering at him in front of his kids. They didn't want someone insulting their father's memory or some right-wing website chuckling about it.
While they were talking to Gina and Krista, they never let on to me. They said it's their Christmas gift to me since I've been urging them to share their experiences publicly and I think it's the greatest gift I'll get this year.
But they did sound out Betty, C.I. and Ruth for feedback. All three were supportive and encouraging. They were thrilled by the idea. But I think it was the comfort Gina and Krista instilled that helped decide it for them as well as the fact that Gina's an African-American and Krista is White and that they try to address race and racial interaction seriously in the round-robin. They felt this was to place to share their experiences and memories.
I spoke with both Gina and Krista but Gina, like Seth, is living a nightmare these days because she's in retail and this is a busy time for them. She kept trying to think of a quote to go up here and finally begged off saying that she and Krista had spoken at length about this so use a quote from Krista and everyone should know that Krista's speaking for the both of them.
Krista says that they are very honored that Three Cool Old Guys have chosen to share with the round-robin readers. She said she and Gina both see tremendous value in hearing from people who lived through the times and not just someone born after weighing in.
Three Cool Old Guys told me to put in that Ava & C.I.'s commentary last week was the deciding "push" because "we are losing ground." They appreciated that Ava and C.I. didn't shy from noting an obvious but often unremarked fact, African-Americans are leads less and less. Ava & C.I. were focusing on women in their feminist critique and that certainly includes women of color but they were really glad that Ava & C.I. also worked in the fact that when the groups who are being stereotyped and shut out work together, they can put the pressure on.
They also told me this morning that I better note that review because they think it covered a great deal and felt it was "speaking truth when some are just wanting to keep it light." The title of the commentary is "TV: We're losing ground and now is not the time for silence." That was pretty powerful, I agree. And I spoke to Jess and Ty about it Friday to check on the e-mail reaction. The feedback's been incredible on that. Ty joked that they should have just made the edition the commentary and "War Got Your Tongue" because those two pieces spoke powerfully to readers.I'm going to talk a bit about that edition because I wrote Thursday about the problems that some have caused the community. We had a really strong edition ready to go and the pieces were set but needing some polish. The only thing we hadn't done was the book discussion. As we were on what we thought was our final break, C.I. checks the public e-mail account and there's Christine whining and saying she wants "peace."C.I. conveyed the e-mail to us, which I won't quote from though I groaned at it as did several others, and felt the need to respond to it.
Christine seems to be offended that anyone would call her out on anything. There's the treatment of Kat which I noted on Thursday, but there's also the fact that she can't grasp why anyone would object to her site pushing The New Republic? If she can't grasp that, she needs to find out information about what she chooses to promote. Her other big beef is that she was called out on her silence about the war.
C.I.'s feelings, expressed to us, were that she was hurting and if she was hurting as much as she said we might want to consider the edition. The edition wasn't focused on her but it did talk about people like her, and she's sadly not alone in her silence.
C.I. took the time to respond to what might have been a genuine e-mail. C.I. took the time to, as was done in the roundtable, attempt to see their side. A lot of us were mad, not at C.I. because C.I. will try to be fair.
But we didn't think the e-mail was a genuine offer of peace or that it was anything but someone whining for being called on what they should be called on.
But in the spirit of the season, we agreed to scrap the edition. That and C.I.'s taking the time to reply to her, cost us a huge amount of time because we suddenly had to come up with an entirely new edition.
Ava and C.I. had written their TV commentary. They wanted to polish it and C.I. needed to call a friend at a TV show to confirm the facts that were passed on by a guest star on the show. The show was Veronica Mars and all last year Veronica was saying she was raped. This year it turns out she's with Duncan who was the man who raped her. (Read on, as Ava and C.I. would say.)Jim and Rebecca were very angry about scrapping the edition and very vocal about their anger.
Although no one blamed C.I. for the mess Christine was creating or for doing the "in fairness" bit, there were a few remarks that both Jim and Rebecca apologized for later in the week.But because of the Christine's issues that she dumps on C.I. at the last minute, we were all put out. I say "dumps on C.I." because her gripes were about stuff going on at all the sites but she only contacts C.I. to scream at C.I. and that's how the e-mail read to me.
So all her nonsense put us way behind schedule. And C.I. wasn't able to make the planned call.
We're now agreed to scrap the edition, we all agreed, and Jim posted a note to the readers but felt something, anything had to go up and had to go up right away because it was almost eight o'clock Jim's time and they usually have most of the content, or try to, up by seven a.m. Jim's time. The TV commentary was brought up and C.I. said, "I'm flat out uncomfortable with posting that until I make the call to ____ ______. I can do that, the earliest, in three hours." So the thing to do was to wait. And Ava supported that as well. But there was so much frustration over Christine's nonsense that Jim and Rebecca were basically saying, "You agreed to this delay so it's going up." That was posted over Ava and C.I.'s objection.
When the edition is finally done and posted, we're all wiped out. I left in the middle to attend church but skipped Sunday school. Betty skipped church all together because she felt that things were getting a little out of control in terms of the anger at Christine spilling over onto C.I.I'll add again that Rebecca and Jim have apologized.
I'll also say again that we were all put under a lot of pressure due to scrapping the edition.But three hours after the edition's done and posted, C.I. wakes up to the phone ringing and it's the friend. Duncan is no longer the rapist. Veronica wasn't raped. They just tossed that plot out the window.
Ava and C.I. corrected their commentary and really rewrote it, not just offering a simple correction, but rewriting it to work in the fact that marketing Veronica as a rape victim and then letting her be someone who cried rape falsely is even more offensive.
In the new version, Ava and C.I. take the fall for the mistake without ever noting that they were screaming their heads off against that going up before C.I. called the friend. They just own their mistake. And Ava's comments may not be as clear to some, she and C.I. both offer an individual comment midway in the commentary, because Ava & C.I. never say, "Don't blame us. What posted was a draft that we didn't even have time to polish let alone check out." But when Ava's talking about how it wasn't funny to her, she's talking about how she and C.I. had screamed and hollered that the thing shouldn't go up but were overridden. And not just by Jim and Rebecca. I supported Jim & Rebecca on that. Others did too. Jess and Betty were actively taking C.I. and Rebecca's side. And everyone I'm naming gave me permission to discuss this except for C.I. who left it up to Ava to make the call for both of them. (C.I. was polite but vague and I'm guessing intentionally vague in an attempt to high road it. Elaine said she'd be happy to help me in terms of "Yes, that got said" and "No, that didn't get said" if I wanted to run things by her but that she wasn't comfortable being quoted or speaking on background. Everyone other than C.I. and Elaine particpated in this, whether quoted or not, if they were present for The Third Estate Sunday Review edition.)
Dona and Jim's attitude is that the positive side is one C.I. commented to them (C.I. claims not to remember individual conversations which is, my opinion, an attempt to take the high road on the whole issue): it showed that The Third Estate Sunday Review wasn't afraid to correct a mistake and to do so immediately.
As Dona and Jim point out, Pop Politics can't say the same thing.
But after C.I. got off the phone with the friend, the next call was to Ava and, on the speaker phone, to Ava, Jim and Dona, it was explained what was up.
Dona says that it's a lesson. The writers were saying they weren't comfortable. That should have been the clue to wait. But the rape was promoted for a year and a guest star on the show had told C.I. (and backed it up on the phone with Ava) that Veronica was with Duncan. (And Ava and C.I. knew Duncan was the rapist before last season ended because of friends on the show.) Based on the fact that Veronica was raped, because a full season was built on that, and on the fact that Ava and C.I. had been told months ago that Duncan was the rapist, that the guest star told them both Veronica and Duncan were now a couple, Dona says one last fact check went out the window.
"It's one that should have been made," Dona says. "But it wasn't. And it was an issue that the mainstream media deals with all the time, time constraints and the need to go with a story as quickly as possible. I think it was a lesson and I'm glad to say that on our end, the correction began as soon as it did. Not the next day or days later."
That's because as soon as C.I. explained it, Ava & C.I. got to work on the corrected commentary.
They didn't write the whole thing and then post it. That note at the top of the piece was written and it was published with a note that the correction was in progress. As they rewrote their way through, they continued to publish every few paragraphs always noting that a correction was in progress and noting how far along they were in the revised commentary.
Ava says they made that decision because they didn't want anyone to stumble onto it after they knew there was a mistake and [for readers] not [to] know that there was a mistake.
"As soon as we knew, the correction began," Ava explains. "We could have just done a note at the bottom and nothing else. Some people would never read to the end so we felt we needed the note at the top. We also felt strongly that this was worse, that she wasn't raped, than what we'd originally critiqued so we felt the need to make that point. But anyone reading along, and according to Jess' report on the e-mails, could see the process as it happened. Jim stayed out of it and I wasn't aware that he and Dona were her in room following the progress until after C.I. and I finished. I was exhausted and went to the kitchen to make some hot chocolate and head to bed. Jim and Dona came in. Both apologized, again, for insisting the piece go up before we made the call. They also both stressed that they thought the model C.I. and I used was the one that should be used if there's ever a need for a correction again. There was none of the junk that the New York Times is so fond of where a week or two later, they note in the corrections box a mistake. And online, they'll say something like''correction appended.' We made a mistake and we corrected it and we didn't let the piece stand with a correction but rewrote it. We rewrote it publicly, bit by bit, and anyone curious or wanting to follow it could do so by refreshing their page every few minutes."
Wally told me that he still couldn't believe that the show had "trashed" their own plot like that. He said he would probably still argue for something to be posted but he would be more likely to listen to reservations. He said it was like if The Simpsons suddenly decided to do an episode claiming Mr. Burns had never been shot.
"Everyone saw Mr. Burns shot, so how could you know that the writers would just decide that the facts they presented no longer mattered?" Wally asks. "But, for me, next time, if there is a next time, someone who's participated or, in this case with Ava and C.I., written the whole thing objects, I will listen. I don't know if it would have mattered this time if I had listened because the 'facts' were that Veronica had been raped. Anyone who saw the show at all the first year knew that. My cousin watches and so when Ava and C.I. knew who the rapist was, I asked if it was okay to tell her before the cliffhanger ending. They said it was fine with them so I did. Then you had ___ ____ telling them that Duncan and Veronica were a couple. So the facts should have been the facts. As soon as I heard about the correction, I called my cousin and she said, 'Oh Wally, I stopped watching when it all got too soap opera-ish.' But I could've thought to call her when Ava and C.I. were saying that the weren't comfortable with it being published. I didn't and that's my regret in the whole thing along with not listening when they were saying 'no.'"
Everyone I spoke to is seeing the positive, or trying to, about the whole thing. Which is that the commentary is stronger, the correction was handled in a timely fashion and done openly, and a lesson can be learned from it all.
But it's also true that if Christine hadn't come whining at the last minute, we never would have been put in that position to begin with. We wouldn't have had to decide whether or not to post an article that the two writers weren't comfortable with. C.I. wouldn't have been dealing with Christine's crap and been unable to make the call to confirm with the guy on the show what the story was. And we wouldn't have had to scrap an entire edition.
We put ourselves out to take Christine up on her "peace" offer. That's why when her e-mails attacking Kat went out, people were offended. That's why when she made the decision, in the midst of her "peace" to delink from The Common Ills without ever noting that in any of her many e-mails she sent out, we'd had enough. She'd trashed Kat to Ryan. She'd excused Bernie altering Kat's words (including change a verb form, not just dropping off the "can" in front of the quote) and wasn't too concerned about a correction.
No one asked C.I. or Ava to do a correction. They did their correction because the truth matters to them. A different set of priorities went on at Christine's site where a distortion of Kat's words remained. It may still remain. Christine wrote in one of her many e-mails that she'd cleaned up the comments to that post. I read that as she grasped how badly she'd embarrassed herself and wanted to hide it.
She came whining minutes before midnight Saturday, three I believe, offering "peace" and everyone suffered for it. We made a real effort and you won't find any talk of this at any of the community sites until her "peace" was demonstrated to be false.This happened even though she continued to trash Kat's writing in her e-mails. This happened even though she tore into Ava in response to a Ava's e-mail that was not controversial and didn't warrent an attack. (I've read Ava's e-mail to her. Both the one that set Christine off and the one replying to that. Even when replying, Ava didn't bring up the attack [on Ava] and stayed with a flat tone.)
Three Cool Old Guys have followed this issue and they think it stems from someone wanting to write "nonsense" and get a pass for it by playing "the feminist card." They think it's like someone wanting to be recognized as a powerful leader for civil rights but deciding not to comment on race issues. When called on it, instead of attempting to make a difference, the person just wants everyone to act like it's okay to call yourself a feminist but not address feminist issues. They say too many people are let off the hook because they pull that nonsense and that it harms us all.
I agree with that and the point that if we were all demanding action from the media, we might see results. Instead the 'vangical voters (to use C.I.'s term) demand and they get served. They got Ford to waffle with their demands.I also see it as shameful that a grown up of any gender thinks that some stupid TV show is more important than the war.
I'm offended as well that someone calling herself a feminist is willing to promote a magazine that's promoted and offered attacks, including violent ones, "jokes" or not, against Arundhati Roy. That was such a shock to us, what Wally found in the column by Dave Zirin, because we'd been reading a book of essays by Roy. C.I. and Rebecca knew about the attacks on Roy but the rest of us didn't. For Christine to see the rag as worthy of promotion and feel that we're quibbling over something small may be telling about where she stands.As an African-American, I'm offended that she promotes the rag since the so-called liberal rag has been happy to pimp and further offending stereotypes against African-Americans for many years. Instead of seeing it as a quibble, a thinking person should be looking into the magazine to determine the validity of the arguments.
Christine's happy to have her links and to try to get attention. It doesn't matter that to do that, she has to promote a magazine that, for the left, is one that's been racist, sexist and war mongering.
Having been made aware that there are problems for some with promoting that magazine, she decides the delink to do is not to the magazine that pushed the contras as "freedom fighters" and covered up the crimes in Central America, the delink to do is to The Common Ills?
This is done during her "peace" while everyone's attempting to respond to her offer in a peaceful manner.
At this point, it's not ignorance that allows her to push The New Republic, it's stupidity. I use that term because we were reading a book by Robert Parry for today's book discussion.
Parry's talked about The New Republic at his site but this book makes the points even more clear.
When you can't speak out, and she can't find her voice on the war, people will have to look to other things to figure out where you stand. One of the things they'll look at is what you endorse.
There is nothing left or feminist in endorsing The New Republic.
For those who have been seeking their answer about where she stands, we probably now have it.

A note to our readers

Sunday, barely.

The note was delayed because we need to note if we're publishing Sunday. We weren't all aware that Christmas was Sunday. A lot of people are up in the air due to plans. We have confirmation from Elaine, Mike, C.I., Cedric, Jess and Jim at this point. If others are able to participate, that's wonderful. If not that's fine as well. Ruth said she'll be happy to participate in a discussion.

We will have an editorial. We're not sure what else. Ava and C.I. are "very unhappy" with their TV commentary (we're betting you'll enjoy it) because that wasn't what they worked on. They were doing a review and were half way done with it prior to us all getting together. At five in the morning, while we still had to do the editorial someone (me, Jim) mentioned that we really wanted them to do a commentary on TV in terms of entertainment this week and on TV news next week.

They had no idea that was coming and we (which means me, Jim) will try to give proper notice when we have a request. We think it's funny. They don't care for it. They wrote it in five minutes, then one hour later, did five minutes of polish. It took Dallas longer to track down the links in that then it took them to write it. We like it and think you will as well.

Next week may or may not have a look at TV news. Ava's holiday plans are very firm and it's really too late for her to back out on them but she and C.I. are going to try to get something done ahead of time in "the hours and hours of time . . . we don't have!"

But there will be something up on Sunday so check for that.

This edition, we list personal favorite Christmas songs at the request of one of our readers. We also have an essay on a disturbing "trend" -- arresting people attempting to visit their Congressional reps. The editorial focuses on Bully Boy's flashback to Watergate. ("He's tripping," as Betty noted while we were writing it.)

We also have a very lengthy book discussion.

Some notes on that. Whenever an e-mail comes in, as one did recently, noting that someone didn't speak much or only spoke at the beginning, Dona feels awful because she's the one trying to keep everyone on track. So this time, we designated the reading of an excerpt, for instance and tried very hard to follow who wasn't speaking that much.

C.I. feels there's way too much C.I. We disagree. The comments all go to important points. With one exception. Where C.I.'s repeatedly explaining why Robert Parry's book sat on the book shelves unread for years. That's due to the fact that C.I.'s not doing a blog but representing a community and wanted to be very clear that Parry's book was not left unread due to any problem with the book or Parry (who's a favorite of many in the community) but because Rebecca hadn't gotten around to reading a book C.I. had gifted her with and they were in a stand off.

A lot of times when clarifications are repeated, that is the reason. The rest of us don't worry about it. But the rest of us aren't expected to speak for ourselves and a community.

With that exception (which is obviously needed by and for the community) noted, the rest of the statements were necessary. C.I. had plan to sit out the discussion of the last book as did Ava.
Betty chose an excerpt and she wasn't the only one choosing similar ones but she was comfortable discussing it after the break we took. One comment C.I. wanted in that didn't make it was that Betty is a reader and responds as someone well read and interested, greatly interested in reading. This book is trying to go beyond that and reach a wide audience. The book is Mary Mapes' book. Mary Mapes is attempting to explain what happened.

On the break we took, due to the fact that the discussion had already gone longer than we intended, the issue of quote came up and led to a discussion. It wasn't a heated one. (That would be last Sunday.) C.I. and Ava both had strong comments based upon people they knew at CBS. Dona agreed with the arguments C.I. and Ava were making.

We felt they needed to go into the discussion. Ava said she was uncomfortable with discussing things told to her in confidence by friends and wouldn't budge on this (though she did end up contributing at least one point once the discussion was back on). C.I. was of the same attitude but agreed to speak if we could keep it strictly in generalities. If you read the discussion and feel like we're pulling teeth with our questions, we are.

It would have been very easy for us to swipe Ava and C.I.'s comments and speak of them in the discussion ourselves but it wouldn't have been honest. We're not sure how that plays out, to be honest, because the break didn't end up being a break. We were supposed to take 15 but before that happened, the issue of the excerpt came up and we spent an hour discussing the book, during the break, with no one taking notes.

But we do know the points made. Rebecca was more than happy to identify the two people she recognized in the book, two people making supporting comments to Mapes but left unnamed. C.I. was clear that if that happened, C.I. couldn't participate.

During the hour "break," the issue C.I. kept coming back to was whether silence to protect friends anonymity was fair and what was the news value. So we focused on the critique. It worked for us but we have a huge backstory that's not in the discussion as it appears. Hopefully, in general terms, it still works.

Where is our promised note? The one about last edition. Check Cedric's site because when we hit a wall with a huge entry that Dona felt needed severe editing, Cedric ended up tackling the issue. It will appear at his site and we will spotlight it next week.

The highlights are here, where we spotlight other entries. We took an hour debating what to include and what not to. Since none appeared last week, we felt it was important to include them this week. An additional hour was spent discussing who could and couldn't work on next Sunday's edition.

Some of us will be working on it. Those who can't, can't. We respect that. And no one ever needs to feel guilty about that. Mike's going to be late posting this week but plans to work on something every day. Elaine plans to try ("to try") to do the same. Rebecca says she'll post at least four times. Wally's got extended family coming in starting Monday and is unsure how often he'll post. Betty notes that she's having huge problems with her latest but will have it ("I swear") up this week. C.I. will post something each day but will also need to work on the year-in-the review. You'll see stuff at The Common Ills from Martha & Shirley (their book list which was ready this week but is being held for Christmas day), Ruth and Isaiah. Isaiah was held today because C.I. wants Isaiah to have a week off. Kat is working on three things for The Common Ills and hopes to have them completed before the new year so she notes that she may only post once this week. With the church program he's involved in, Cedric thinks he will post only once this week.

That's the community announcement.

All features posted were the work of:

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

Except the TV feature which was done by Ava and C.I. ("under duress, " Dona notes).

We thank everyone who lets us highlight them in our spotlights and we thank Dallas for hunting down links. Dallas agreed to do that for next week and we're attempting to get him to participate. (For those who've forgotten, the only time Dallas has participated is in two news review and the first time was because C.I. put him on the spot since the topic was the victims of Hurricane Wilma and one shelter was in Dallas' hometown.)

See you next Sunday.

-- Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess and Ava