Highlights

This piece is written by Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude, Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix, Kat of Kat's Korner, Betty of Thomas Friedman is a Great Man, Mike of Mikey Likes It!, Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz, Ruth of Ruth's Report, Marcia of SICKOFITRADLZ, Stan of Oh Boy It Never Ends and Wally of The Daily Jot. Unless otherwise noted, we picked all highlights.








"I Hate The War" -- Most requested. C.I. didn't think so. Thought the topic would put a number of people off. Elaine says the watering down of AFSC is akin to the watering down of Quaker beliefs and practices. Regardless, it's a powerful entry.





"Sauerkraut and weinies in the Kitchen" -- Kat asked Trina Friday if she ever got tired of covering the economy? "All the time" was the response. But she sticks with it. And, as usual, Trina finds a detail that others miss. The recall on some peanut butter products effects households, effects retail, effects the economy. If the FDA was properly funded, things could be discovered (via real inspections) prior to the problem. In health care, they say prevention is cheaper than a cure. But they never seem to follow that when it comes to the economy.





"Washington Week" -- Betty covers the PBS gas baggery surpreme and does a solid job. Well done, Betty.





"Matt Lauer, Diane Silver and other idiots" -- While Betty elected to cover PBS, Marcia chose to cover network TV and the bald and boring Matt Lauer.

"Kat's Korner: Springsteen's serving up a dud" -- Kat's latest review went up last night and we love it!

"Sweet and high at the break of dawn" -- Kat's talking about the new Tracy Chapman CD and we can tell you that you don't want to miss her review of the album. It's really something. It goes up today at The Common Ills.





Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "The Greedy Pig" -- Isaiah takes on Tommy Daschle. Tom, this was a gift, be sure to declare it on your 2009 taxes!





"The tax cheating duo" and "THIS JUST IN! WHITE MEN CAN'T PAY TAXES!" -- Cedric and Wally on the 'standard' that Barack nominees not pay taxes.








"green party news" -- Rebecca serves up some Green Party news.





"Iraq" -- Ruth updates on the topic of Iraq.





"The Cheap Detective" -- Stan's Friday night movie post.








"Movieline, Premiere," "interview," "Dynamite," "Lionel Richie, Billy Corgan, and more," "off our backs," "Clamor," "The Progressive" and "International Socialist Review" -- Wednesday night's theme was magazines and a wide selection was offered.





"Alegre goes to her first feminist sell-out conference" -- Second most requested highlight by readers of this site.





"Theremin" -- Marcia gives you your book notes! :D





"Daschle, Iraqi women" -- Elaine weighs in on Daschle and on the pathologizing of gender.





"Dennis Loo and this week's Dumb Ass pick" -- Mike awards the Dumb Ass of the week to a very deserving fellow. (Read to find out who.)





"Hank is backdoor company" -- "THIS JUST IN! WHITE HOUSE WELCOMES WAR CRIMINAL!" -- Barack brings Henry Killer Kissinger back into the federal government.

Truest statement of the week

Closer scrutiny of President Obama's first Executive Orders reveals that they were designed less to transform illegal US military intelligence practices, than to allow them to continue in secret without legal obstruction, by redefining their character (while retaining their substance).

-- Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed, "Obama: Regime Rotation" (Information Clearing House).

A note to our readers

Hey --
Another Sunday. And we are dragging. First let's give credits. Along with Dallas, the following helped on this edition:

The Third Estate Sunday Review's Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess, and Ava,
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,
Ruth of Ruth's Report,
Wally of The Daily Jot,
Marcia of SICKOFITRDLZ
and Stan of Oh Boy It Never Ends.

We thank everyone for their help. And what did we come up with?


Truest statement of the week -- This was the clear winner.

Editorial: The fear paralysis -- The last thing we wrote. This was supposed to be epic. As Jess said, "Let's just make our points and be done already." Agreed. It was a long, long process.

TV: Fate laughs at 2006's handicappers -- Ava and C.I. weigh in on the program people have waited nearly three years for. It was worth the wait. By the way, they want it noted that a Sunday in April (probably the first Sunday) will be think piece -- pulling strands on a theme -- and not a review of a week's program or programs. They're noting that now for a reason that will make sense later. I love the title but was worried. (I write the headlines.) Would people get it? "You're talking horse racing, right?" And if you don't get the flatness of the voice, you needed to see their faces. But, in case anyone doesn't get it, "handicappers" refers to horse racing guessers -- and here to those who said Katie Couric couldn't do the job of anchoring before she'd ever anchored.


Military sexual assault -- This could have been longer but we edited this down and hopefully made it tighter. If not, we weakened it. (We is Ty, Jess, Dona and myself.) Ava and C.I. volunteered to start typing features if it meant avoiding editing this. (They didn't want anything to do with that task.)

Congrats America, you elected a Jewish mother -- a short feature. Dona loves them and so do a number of you. (I personally enjoy this one.)

Mailbag -- We hadn't done the editorial (which we planned to be epic) and we hadn't done the MSA article. Dona pointed out that the appearance of the edition would be pretty blah and we could break it up with a transcript piece. Ty was going to do a "Ty's Corner" but volunteered some of the e-mails he'd pulled for that. Dallas participates. When I mentioned that after, he said, "Yeah, and probably the only time this year." Only Wally or C.I. can get him to speak up in the transcript pieces. Seriously.

And that's why you don't let Republicans in the do... -- In the door. Ava and C.I. hated my headline and they now say, "In the do? What's the 'do,' Jim?" Point is, they wanted "some" in the headline. I said tht would be too many words and it would also prevent us from having the full title display. They point to "in the do" and laugh.

The Shirley goes to . . . -- New feature suggested by reader Lurlisa. Thank you!

The backstory on the White House press briefings -- While Ava and C.I. wrote their TV commentary, the rest of us worked on this. When we told them our topic, they said, "We're not even reading it."

Hypocrisy Corrente Style -- So dropping people from a blogroll is bad form? What about dropping your entire blogroll?

ETAN says drop charges against Jose Belo -- Reposting of ETAN announcement that was sent here to late to be noted last week. (Kat and Elaine noted it and C.I. included it in the snapshot last week.)


Roundtable -- And a repost of the roundtable Rebecca did Friday night.

Highlights -- Mike, Elaine, Stan, Marcia, Wally, Cedric, Betty, Kat, Ruth and Rebecca wrote this and picked highlights. We thank them for it. We hoped to use the first groupings linked for an article here this week but time ran out.

That's how it goes some times.

See you next week.

-- Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess, Ava and C.I.

Editorial: The fear paralysis

President Barack Obama stabbed women in the back by catering to Republicans and ditching family planning from his proposed stimulus package. Before the knife wounds had healed, House Republicans made clear they weren't interested in bi-partisanship or even in bonding over sexist attacks.



And at the time that Barack should have been loudly called out (or at least suffered a lot of nah-nah-nah-nah taunting), what happened instead were attempts to 'understand' Barack.



He's just caught in the bi-partisan model.



He's just trying to get along.



He wants the press to like him.



It was hilarious to hear all the excuses for Barack.



None of them made a great deal of sense.



Take the "wants the press to like him." Barack's always acted with a sense of entitlement when it comes to the press. They finally try to ask him tough questions about Tony Rezko? He scolds them and disappears to the other end of the plane. He shows up at the White House press room and they try to ask him questions? He scolds them and slinks away. He has no respect for the press and no fear of the press. He has no fear of it because he's been built by the press. He'll transition from diapers to pull-ups shortly but he's still not learned that the press buildeth and the press teareth down.



A best-guess on why he did what he did would have to be based on past actions.



The most likely reason for Barack to reach out to the Republicans?



Barack doesn't make difficult decision. Barack has no record. It's why he voted present so many times in the Illinois legislature and why he skipped out on the tough votes during his brief stint as a US Senator.



You can't repeatedly cite your fabled judgment -- you'd have thought he predicted 9-11 the way he went on -- and build your campaign on that and then start taking responsibility. Better to spread it around. For example, had any Republicans crossed over, if the stimulus turns out to be a failure, it's not Barack's fault, it was a bi-partisan measure! Even Republicans came to the table on that!



And besides, to get them to the table, Barack had to show 'maturity' and cut some things out. And so the bill was flawed due to the process and, therefore, it's failure is not Barack's fault.



What you most likely saw last week was a kid who bragged about himself one time to many suddenly being expected to deliver and wanting to be sure that, if he failed, everyone took the fall on it.

TV: Fate laughs at 2006's handicappers

Back in April of 2006, we wrote "TV: Katie Was a Cheerleader" and, as a result, a group of people (regular readers) have regularly asked that we take a look at The CBS Evening News with Katie Couric. A smaller group has written that we can never examine the broadcast because we know and like Katie and can't be impartial.

We're not sure whether we supposedly can't be impartial because we know someone or if that's specific to Katie Couric. That confusion derives in part from a minor media 'watchdoggie' who loathes Couric, makes no secret of loathing her, being among the ones e-mailing to say we'd offer "nothing but valentines" to Couric. E-mailing multiple times. Never say we don't love a challenge.

"Good evening everyone and welcome to network television's first ever evening newscast in prime time," declared Couric broadcasting in the slot usually reserved for The New Adventures of Old Christine last Wednesday. And with such a broadcast, how could we afford not to comment?

Yes, we know Katie. Yes, we like Katie. We've made no attempt to hide that fact. And that means we'll pull punches? Oh, silly goose, you don't know us at all.

Two complaints on Wednesday's broadcast.

First up, dangling earrings. No. No. And no. Like many anchors -- and normal people -- Couric has a tendency to move her head. No one needs the shaking earrings. It was distracting and another pair should have been chosen prior to air but, once on air, someone should have caught that every time Katie moved and the earrings started swaying, there was a distraction.

Second, who passes legislation? In the US, the legislative branch (Congress) passes legislation. The White House signs it into law. (If the White House vetoes it, Congress can override the veto with a two-thirds majority vote.) Are we all up on the basics?

"President Obama got his first big legislative victory this evening," Katie declared at the top of the broadcast, "when the White House passed his economic stimulus package, the most expensive piece of legislation in executive history."

Really? The White House passed legislation? Wow. Was it a roll call vote?



It was a flub. And it required an on air correction. From Katie. She's the one who said it and probably had no idea she'd said that. (She presumably meant the House of Representatives.) That's why you have people in a control booth. That's why, during commercial breaks, it's pandemonium during a news broadcast. Someone should have caught it and should have pointed it out. Had they, a correction probably would've been included in the broadcast.



Probably?



We called a CBS News exec friend. We said we were going to write about the Wednesday broadcast and had a question about the first segment.



"You think we were carrying water for Barack too?"



That was the immediate response.



No, actually, we didn't think that. The story -- and the discussion that followed it -- were pretty straight forward. If we'd seen Barack bias, believe us, we'd call it out.



He seemed to calm down and explained that Newsbusters, a right wing outlet, was all over them about supposed bias in that segment. They even did a transcript and . . .



Newsbusters did a transcript?



Well then we can just link to them and note that they called out the error --



Error?



We were informed they accused CBS of bias but didn't catch any error.



So we explained the error and were told it should have been corrected but asked if they got it right in the voice over? Yes, the voice over at the top of the show, over the theme music, got it right. It was thought that if it was caught, the thinking was most likely, 'It was set up already, so anyone who caught the flub would most likely grasp that it was a flub.'



We actually had more complaints about that attitude than over the flub.



But those are our two complaints about the broadcast. No more dangling earrings and there was a flub that went uncorrected.



Otherwise a very strong half-hour that demonstrated why Katie Couric was the right choice for CBS and why the network's evening news is a better and still improving show.



What do we mean?



Couric was ridiculed months before she ever began anchoring the show in the fall of 2006. The ridicule did not let up for the longest -- and in some quarters, never has. When she moved from the shock of the attacks, she especially began to stress that she wasn't a news reader.



For whatever reasons, we really didn't grasp what she was saying, the point she was making, until we watched the Wednesday night broadcast. (Actually both the Wednesday broadcasts -- first the regular evening news and then the prime time special.)



Ann Curry, whom we also know and like and that's never prevented us from disagreeing with her either, is the news reader on Today. She was in that role when Katie Couric left NBC's Today to move over to the evening news on CBS. Ann is very talented at her job. If you've never watched Today, the two hosts come on, after the theme music and voice over, and might banter (depending on which hour of the broadcast it is) or be solemn, but they do it for a few minutes and then someone tosses to Ann. Ann then has around five minutes to offer up a series of headlines. In a very compact period of time, she has to touch on several different issues and touch on them enough so that if you've never heard of the development before, you can still follow it.



There's an art to what Ann does (and Ann can do a lot more than that and frequently does on Today) and, once upon a time, a network newscast in the evening was pretty much that, with a few reports from the field and a commentary at the end of the program in some cases. The evening anchor as news reader really doesn't exist on ABC or NBC and both Charlie Gibson and Brian Williams were doing their anchoring before Katie's first broadcast. It's really strange that the expectation for Katie was news reader -- expectation among the chattering set -- and it wasn't that for Brian or Charlie.



Pinning it off on Katie goes to gender fears. If she's not tightly controlled, she'll fall apart! Or the audience will!



Reality, the only ones falling apart are the ones demanding she be a news reader. And don't bore us with the crap about, "She was expected to be a news reader because she was coming to the network news from a morning entertainment program." Uh, no, she wasn't. Today was under NBC news. Good Morning America, where Charlie hailed from, has long been -- proclamations in the network commercials notwithstanding -- a division of ABC entertainment. If anyone should have had something to prove, it was Charlie Gibson who chose to move over to entertainment from news when he left news for GMA. But it was about gender fears so it was glom on Katie and pretend that if she didn't have that 'structure,' the whole news industry would crumble.



She's best when she's allowed to follow her own instincts. Which includes the discussion she and Chip Reid had following his report on the House passing the stimulus proposal. That was also true of the conversation with David Price following his report on the ice storms that had left many without power across the United States.


Among the things that stood out the most were the smooth transitions and how quickly and fluidly the broadcast moved. They are hitting their stride and that includes finding the rhythm for the broadcast. Rhythm is set by pace, by alternating types of segments and by camera changes. The latter was especially impressive Wednesday night for all live segments.



All live segments? Couric filed a pre-recorded report.



She introduced it by explaining, "The army is cracking down on sexual abuse in the ranks. A third of service women and six percent of service men say they have been victims. This week the Army said it will hire more prosecutors to bring perpetrators to justice. Meanwhile critics say the military needs to do more about another crime, women being assaulted, beaten, even raped by their military husbands or boyfriends. A CBS News investigation finds more than 25,000 spouses and domestic partners have been attacked over the past decade. Nearly ninety spouses have died."

The segment featured Couric's interviews with survivor Jessacia Patton and the Army Director of Family Affairs Lynn McCollum.

Patton explained how her husband, who had done two tours in Iraq with the Army Rangers, beat her and their daughter Bella. Despite that and, Couric informed, despite pleading "guilty to child abuse after beating three-month-old Bella and then, a few months later, in a drunken rage, threatening [Jessacia] with a gun, he attacked and raped his wife" but saw no punishment (one night in jail) until he "threatened his fellow soldiers and went AWOL" -- at which point, the military decided to prosecute and he was sentenced to seven years.

Jessacia Patton opened up during the interview and that's part of Couric's skills. She does listen when you're speaking, she does appear interested (she's yet to fall asleep on camera, that would be ABC). And that interest is part of her image. It allows someone like Patton to share a very difficult story, to relive it for the cameras. ("I think I laid there for about an hour and just cried. I had given up. I didn't even care if he came in and he killed me. I was broken.")

It's that same skill that draws out the moments that are making people appreciate Couric all the more. We are not Sarah Palin haters. We did not vote for her but we have defended her from sexist attacks. We have especially defended her with regards to Saturday Night Live's attacks on her (those were attacks, when you sexualize Palin by having Tina Fey play her lifting up her skirt, you're attacking the woman, you're not offering a parody of her). Couric did with Palin what she did with Barack. With Barack, there were whines about how mean she was to him. The same people applauded the same treatment of Palin.



In both cases, Couric wasn't mean. Katie was doing her job. Her job is to ask the questions. Her job is to get memorable footage -- which hopefully illuminates some aspect of a politician -- for broadcast. That is her job. She does it very, very well.



And she demonstrated it again during one exchange of her report:



Katie Couric: According to a number of conversations with victims advocates, the army usually rallies around the soldier and leaves the victim to fend for herself and then when she finally does get help, the complaint is the system is entirely stacked against her.






Lynn McCollum: It's disturbing to hear those kinds of comments. Over the last couple of years, we've really put into place, um, and increased the number of victim advocates. One of our biggest challenges because we're a larger bureaucracy is getting information out.





Couric Voice Over: It's not only the victims that aren't getting help it's also the soldiers. CBS news has learned that in case after case soldiers returning from Iraq or Afghanistan have raised red flags regarding their mental health problems but they're often ignored with devastating consequences. In this post-deployment health assessment obtained by CBS News, this soldier clearly indicates concerns for potential conflicts with his spouse or family members and that he "might hurt or lose control with someone" but nothing was done. A year later he murdered his wife.



Katie Couric: He put it right here on a questionnaire and nobody did anything about it. How can that happen? If you have all these systems and services in place.

McCollum looks into the camera and makes a face, sort of a grimace, then she declares, "I need a break, guys." The camera shows her off to the side, speaking with at least three people -- two men (one in military uniform) and one woman. Couric is shown looking over her notes while the four employees of the Army confer. McCollum finally returns, sits back down and offers, "Obviously, I think, in this situation, a mistake probably was made."

Probably.

It's a powerful moment and the sort that Mike Wallace would be praised for. It's also Couric's job. It was her job to ask the questions that made Palin uncomfortable and it was her job to ask the questions that made Barack uncomfortable. On the latter, she wouldn't have had to ask him about the 'surge' four times if he had answered even once. It's her job to ask the question that makes Lynn McCollum uncomfortable.

If people don't like their own responses, it falls back on them. Michelle Pfeiffer, seated across from Barbara Walters in the 90s, explained it very well, "I realized that you can ask me any question but I don't have to answer." And you don't.

But a skillful journalist can motivate (or, yes, even trick) you into answering and Katie Couric has that skill.

That allowed Americans Wednesday night to see just how in denial the military was about the abuse going on. A soldier completed an assessment before rejoining his family in which he expressed that he might harm his family and he received no help or assistance despite that answer. He went on to kill his wife. Confronted with that by Katie, McCollum suddenly needs a break. She needs to confer at length. When she returns the best she can offer is "a mistake was probably made." Probably.

If you watch the segment more than once (click here to view the video), you may notice not only the appalling response by McCollum, but also how Katie pushes the question. She has this semi- smiling, semi-puzzled expression. And it draws McCollum in. Katie Couric is a very skillful journalist.

That doesn't get noted or recognized as often as it should nor does she receives the same level of praise she would if she were a man doing the exact same job.

Doubt it?

We noted her style was uniquely her own and that Mike Wallace would be praised for doing something similar. Some of you might have even thought, "Mike Wallace used to do that." You might have gone further and thought, "Mike Wallace invented that."

No, he didn't.

Jaqueline Susann was always vocal about feeling Wallace ripped her style off -- an interview style she had already pioneered long before the two of them were paired up for Night Beat. How weak must be Mike Wallace's reputation that even allowing for a possible debt to the author of Valley of the Dolls is seen as such a grave threat?

And how the weak the ego and great the fear that led to the relentless attacks on evening news anchor Katie Couric long before she ever sat down at the anchor desk.

It anchors!

That really is what the attacks were -- attacking the 'other'. This decade Katie, Brian and Charlie became network evening news anchors. Only one was ridiculed and treated as a novelty and curiosity. It wasn't the one who fell asleep on air, the one who ticked off guests (such as Gore Vidal) by cutting interviews in the middle and claiming the feed was lost (when it wasn't). That would be Charlie Gibson.

There was never a question of whether or not Charlie Gibson could anchor the network news. Go back and search the coverage following the announcement that he was taking (stealing) the job from an injured journalist and a pregnant one. No one ever questioned it. Despite his record of falling asleep on live TV.

Of the three, Charlie would have been the one to question. For those who care about news, some of the remarks Brian made in the lead up to Tom Brokaw's retirement should have been troubling.

But it was Katie who was ridiculed. It was Katie who was ripped apart. It was Katie, and only Katie, who was expected to stick to the news reading format -- one abandoned long ago.

Or, to note one media 'watchdoggie,' it was "Katey." Despite repeatedly ridiculing her, years after she's the anchor, he finds time to attack her last year and she's "Katey." That's cute. Male or female, that's the sniping of the failed ego of a failure at work.

Katie has a talent for the news and its her talent. She's not Walter Cronkite in a dress, she's not a carbon copy of Diane Sawyer. She's Katie Couric and, now that she's allowed to run the show, she's able to utilize her talents and provide a half-hour of network news that does inform, that does hold the interest. That's not just because she's a journalist in a landscape of personalities, it's because she's a gifted journalist. And that's why CBS Evening News with Katie Couric is the only network newscast that is improving and still growing. Translation, Aged In Wood was intended to be a one-off joke in All About Eve, not a description of the evening news offerings from ABC and NBC.

-------

Added 2-2-09: "The Hidden Casualties Of War" and "When War's Violence Comes Home" and "Resources: Domestic Abuse And The Military" are three features the CBS Evening News offered last week.

Military sexual assault

"It's not threats," explained US House Rep Loretta Sanchez last Wednesday. "It's sort of like this is important to us for you to be graded on. I mean when you go to a class in college, you, if you're a smart student, you understand what the professor wants and what they're going to grade you on. And you tend to work on those issues that are going to get you the A if you care about the grade."



Sanchez was speaking to Sgt 1st Class Michael Horwath during last week's House Armored Services Committee's Military Personnel Subcommittee hearing on military sexual assaults. She was floating an idea before the first panel: "It's been my contention that the only way we're going to make the command understand how important this issue is is that it's actually a section on every promotion that they receive. That in order for them to be promoted, they have to deal with, 'What did you do about this? How much of this has happened under you? How come you were ineffective about this?' And that they don't get promoted if they don't take this seriously."



Horwarth saw it as a threat. Capt Daniel Katka fretted and came close to a meltdown declaring that he wasn't sure such a move would cause change in the ranks -- real change. Why, what if it only resulted in "disingenuous culture change"?



Last Wednesday's special prime time broadcast of The CBS Evening News with Katie Couric included Couric offering this statistic on military sexual assaults, "A third of service women and six percent of service men say they have been victims." One-third. And Katka wants to fret that an alteration in performance evaluations for commanders might lead them to do their job but for "disingenuous" reasons?



The fact that a proposed alteration to a performance evaluation results in counter-charges of "threats" goes a long way towards explaining just how deep in denial the military is about sexual assault.



In 2001, Laura Watterson was sexual assaulted while serving in the Air Force. She offered testimony to the panel which included the following:



I reported it as I was supposed to -- to my supervisor, as well as his. They said it would be taken care of and I trusted that. Two weeks later, I was at work and everyone was asked to stand up because there was going to be a pinning-on ceremony. That pinning-on ceremony was for the man who assaulted me to now outrank me and become a supervisor. He was rewarded. This was when I got very angry. [. . .] I was told by my commander that I needed to understand that, "Different people have different personal bubbles. For example, when you go to England, sometimes when you meet people over there and you shake their hand, they like to hold on to your hand while they're speaking and, as Americans, because we don't do that, it's uncomfortable for us." And that is how he told me that I needed to get over what had happened.



In various ways throughout the first panel and the second, Watterson and other survivors like her were more or less told to "get over it" by the other six witnesses. Five of the six work for the US military, the remainder frequently works with the US military.



If you think they may have made time for some serious self-critiques you (a) are very optimistic and (b) missed the hearing. The response to Representative Sanchez' suggestion -- the dismay over it -- was only one indication that they're not really interested in changing much in the institution that pays their bills.



As bad as the nonsense frequently got, the first panel always had Watterson who owed no debt to anyone and could speak frankly. The second panel had nothing but the indebted. Subcommittee Chair Susan Davis introduced the trio, "For our second panel, we're pleased to have two witnesses from the Department of Defense's Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office and one from the California Coalition Against Sexual Assault. Dr. Kaye Whitley is the Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office -- what we all have been say SAPRO -- she holds a doctorate in counseling and human development. I also believe that this is her first appearance before our subcommittee. Welcome. and also from the Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office is Teresa Scalzo. Ms Scalzo is the senior policy advisor for the Office and is a former director of the National Center for the Prosecution of Violence Against Women. Her purpose here today is to provide her subject matter expertise on the Department of Defense's policy of restrictive reporting. [. . .] But we're very fortunate to have Robert Coombs who did manage to arrive before the bad weather. Mr. Combs is the public affairs director for the California Coalition Against Sexual Assault." Davis disclosed that the Coalition frequently works with the Department of Defense and that should have indicated to all but the last die-hards that there would be little of value emerging in the second panel.



US House Rep Niki Tsongas attempted to explore the US military's 'novel' policy of "restricted reporting." Unrestricted reporting is what happens when someone tells authorities that they have been raped. An investigation follows and (if the charges appear to have merit) a trial follows that. It is how the legal justice system exists in the United States.



The trio of losers represent the push for "restricted reporting." This 'works' by allowing a victim to self-disclose an assault to a SARC and it ends there unless the victim wants to move to unrestricted.



This allegedly has benefits for the victim.



Really?



Whitley would offer that nearly 2,000 victims had used this option since 2005. Some, she would say, had moved to undisclosed status after the fact. She had no number for that which seems rather strange when she knew the exact number of victims who had used 'restricted reporting.' 1,896 isn't a number most of us would readily commit to memory. It's not 1,234. But for some reason, Whitley was able to reel that number off from memory.



Here's reality. The military has covered up sexual assaults for a long, long time. There is a culture of denial within the military. Anyone wanting to ensure that no trial or headlines resulted from a sexual assault could very easily 'counsel' a victim to go with (and stay with) 'restricted reporting.' Where's the check to ensure that's not happening?



Oh, but it wouldn't happen! These are trained professionals!



The military has always had 'professionals' and that didn't prevent the cover ups of multiple incidents of sexual assaults.



As for trained . . .



Katka explained that the way he does things, and he's even made himself a nice little notebook binder, is he finds out which people are coming to the base, asks around about them, and then calls them up and offers them the position. Katka could tell you about his binder, but he didn't volunteer (and wasn't asked) to explain what criteria he uses to compose his list.



Volunteer?



The position is a volunteer position. It's not a paid position. A paid position would apparently allow prestige and move it from 'candy striper' to 'real worker.' A paid position might mean that one's duties in the position could be included on (and evaluated) one of those dreaded performance reviews. A paid position might mean that the person could really devote time to the serious problem.



What better way to indicate how little the military still cares about sexual assault than for the Air Force to make the position a volunteer one?



When you grasp that Katka's hiring -- apparently with no supervision -- is based on his 'gut' and that he's hiring someone to do their regular daily duties and turn around and volunteer time to deal with sexual assault, you grasp that there's a problem.



You also begin to see how a victim could easily be steered into restricted reporting which would certainly be less time consuming for a volunteer and less messy for the military.



Tsongas pointed out to Whitley that 1,896 'restricted reports' "means a significant number of people who committed these assaults are not accountable. [. . .] The question I have, and I think that's a worthy goal for the victim, on the other hand, we do have new women coming into the military who have no real understanding of the threat that might exist [ . . .] at the same time, we have many young people coming into the services who we want to protect."



That is a serious issue and we need to grasp that (a) sexual assault is a crime, (b) sexual assailants statistically assault again and (c) crimes are supposed to be punished.



It as though the military has decided the way to deal with sexual assault is to create a group of volunteer-workers who function as priests in that they hear the victim's 'confession' -- but the only one being absolved is the assailant who continues to roam freely.



It's appalling and telling that there were three people allegedly trained in assisting victims of abuse on that second panel and not one of them brought up the fact that for most victims of assault, confronting the assailant is one step of the recovery. There are even therapeutic models to allow victims to confront assailants who are now dead.



But somehow they forgot to inform Congress of that Wednesday. Possibly because it didn't jibe with the 'restricted reporting' they kept pushing?



'Restricted reporting' isn't worth it and needs to ended right away. It puts others at risk -- while pretending to 'deal' with the issue -- and it doesn't help most victims. Nor is there any check currently on its usage.



Here's the big fear about 'restricted reporting' from military victims advocates, in ten years we learn that 'restricted reporting' actually resulted in more cover ups but, ten years from now, it's now an accepted part of the process and, instead of immediately ditching it, the cry is to reform it. It's time to get rid of it. There is no check on it and considering how easily it could be abused, it needs to be ditched.



In fact, the move should be for these victims rights advocates to be civilian jobs funded by the federal government. There should be no chance of anyone pulling rank on or intimidating an advocate. The advocate should be under no obligation to anyone but the victim.



Laura Watterson's problem with getting help wasn't that she wanted a 'restricted report,' it was that she didn't get help. It was that she utilized the chain of command, followed the rules and regulations and still didn't get help. That's not back during the Colonial War, that's at the start of this decade and it was appalling to watch the second panel attempt to minimize Watterson's experience and insist that changes, changes, changes have addressed those issues.



"Sexual assault is a complex problem where most, if not all, aspects are interrelated. Such a topic does not lend itself to a single hearing. As a result, we have chosen to hold multiple hearings on discrete topics so that members and witnesses can have in-depth discussions about various issues to build towards a comprehensive understanding of the problem. This will guide our deliberations on what can and should be done next," Susan Davis explained as she brought the hearing to order.



While that's wonderful that there will be multiple hearings to address the issue, we should all grasp that the issue is not going to be addressed by asking the military to report on the military. For example, the next hearing's topic is "current and planned Department of Defense programs to prevent sexual assault." Those programs are already in writing. Before that hearing, get victims rights advocates who do not work with the Defense Department to go over the manuals and materials. Bring those people into the hearings and let them offer evaluations. Until moves like that are made, expect the same frustration Loretta Sanchez voiced (twelve years in Congress, multiple laws passed and still the assaults continue) to mount and multiply.



------

VETWOW is among the resources for victims of military sexual assault.

Congrats America, you elected a Jewish mother

Barack's Jewish? Who knew?





In Friday's White House press briefing, spokesperson Robert Gibbs declared of President Obama, "I think many of you have covered him. I have seen him upset at times. He doesn't really get fired up upset. He is more like that disappointed parent, you know, that doesn't embarrass you in the mall, but you feel like you've let somebody down."



Ah, the guilt trip!







Congratulations, America, you just elected your first Jewish mother!





-------------



Nancy Walker played Ida Morgenstern, Rhoda's mother, on The Mary Tyler Show.

Mailbag

Ty: We're doing another mailbag and I've tried to pull e-mails on a number of topics. First off, I wrote a "Ty's Corner" awhile back and mentioned links and said just e-mail us and we'll try to work in a link somewhere and then added, "We don't link to pornography. We're a site for the left so keep that in mind as well." That seems pretty clear to me. I would assume someone e-mailing us about "adult toys" could grasp that, no, we're not linking. It would have seemed to be just spam mail were it not for the fact that it was a personal e-mail and mentions another site we link to. But let me repeat, we're not linking to porn and that includes "adult toys." Now, staying with the issue of porn but dropping to something that appeared at all sites except this one and Mikes -- "Roundtable," "Talking," "the roundtable," "Roundtable and snapshot," "The roundtable," "Iraq, sexual assault, feminism and more," "Discussion and Iraq snapshot," "Movies, Iraq, sexual assault and more" "A roundtable," "Roundtable time" and "Roundtable" -- an e-mail came in from a woman who asked that her name not be used but wanted Marcia to know, "You are referring to erotica, not porn." Marcia?



Marcia: No, I'm referring to porn. In the roundtable, we're talking about a woman in her underwear for a photo -- not porn. And I'm noting that I do have porn. I'm a lesbian, I have videos of lesbians making out. It's porn. I'm not going to call it "erotica." I know that's supposed to be the 'thing to do.' That 'thing to do' has been going on since before I was born. I don't see any changes. Except an increase in the smear that feminists don't like sex. I like sex. I made the personal decision, and did so a few years ago, to stop using the term "erotica." I've outlined the reasons for that. I'm glad she didn't use her name because I'd be calling her out by name noting that we're tackling how many issues in that roundtable -- including military sexual assault -- and her big concern is that I used "porn" when she thinks I should have used "erotica"?



Ty: Same roundtable, Ericzzz e-mails to ask Elaine what she means by, "She posed in her underwear -- in designer underwear, it was a fashion shoot, it's not her personal underwear. Do people know anything about photo shoots? I know C.I. will say, 'No.' I've heard her say it plenty of times. But, the photo you see in the magazine or wherever, that's not necessarily the one the model or photographer planned. It's the one that turned out best. The one that sells."



Elaine: That's clear to me, I'm sorry if it wasn't for Ericzzz and I don't mean that sarcastically. At photo shoots, C.I. will say "no." I've heard her say "no" plenty of times. What is absolutely not clear is where I should have then gone from that. In a photo shoot, many photographers will tell a woman to try this or try that. The sort of thing C.I. says a firm "no" to. But a lot of woman do get tricked. "Okay, but let's try one without the blouse, just to see how it looks." That's where I was heading. The subject in a photo shoot is attempting to be agreeable, is attempting to do their part to make a photo arresting. Your only feedback is the photographer until the prints are developed. You're putting all your trust in them and it can be difficult to say "no." The nature of the relationship is one of dependency because you're the one whom everyone is going to see in the picture and you're depending on the photographer to present you in a flattering light. So it can be very difficult to say "no" for a variety of reasons. Thanks to Ericzzz for e-mailing because I had meant to go into that but didn't.



Ty: We'll come back to that roundtable but there's an e-mail for Dona that arrived Saturday afternoon. Julianne writes that Dona "seems level-headed and organized and I'm guessing she has features in mind for future editions on any given week. When things are going badly during a writing edition, why not just pop out one of those features?"



Dona: That's a good question. We've got, for example, Dolly Parton and Mel Brooks on a list of planned features. With Parton, we're thinking a look at some of her singles, with Brooks his films. When a writing edition is falling apart -- as this one appears to be, honestly -- it's generally too late to start on one of those features. It is 5:30 on the East Coast. Ty was going to do a "Ty's Corner" to cover a number of topics and we put that on hold to do "Mailbag" due to the fact that a transcript piece would really break things up -- one of the reasons I'm arguing that since Ava and C.I. participated in the roundtable Friday, Third should repost it here. Ava and C.I. being part of the six of us that are The Third Estate Sunday Review. And Jim's response? I think Ty has a question on that.



Ty: I do. I'll go to it now. It's joked in the roundtable that Ann, Cedric's wife, is brought into that roundtable just because they know it will kill Jim. Meaning that Rebecca's roundtable got Ann as a participant and Third didn't. It's joked. But some are taking the joke very seriously and e-mailing about it.



Jim: Am I ticked? Yeah. Raging, screaming ticked? No. But of course I would have preferred to have had Ann here participating. And that's why the joke's funny. They're not being mean spirited. It's as if I was inclined to blush -- I'm not -- and they joked, "That'll make Jim blush." It's not an insult to me and I didn't take the joke that way. And, yeah, I would have preferred that we had Ann talk here at Third. I'm famous for staking things out in the roundtables for the gina & krista round-robin --



Wally: And did that just last Thursday night.



Jim: Yes, I did. That's going to be our editorial. But I'm known for that, I'm known for asking C.I. not to write about a topic or not to write about it again that week because I want to use the topic at Third. That's just who I am. I wasn't offended by the joke. I was laughing when I read it.



Ty: Alan e-mails about last month's "1 Book, 5 Minutes," a book discussion on Janis Ian's Society's Child: My Autobiography. Alan wants to know why more book discussions can't be done? For the record, we've answered this question before. We'll include this question in one mailbag this year and that's it. Alan adds, "Reading is important and everyone is cutting back on book sections." Jess, you want to tackle this?



Jess: Hello, Alan. Did you understand that? Good, you are reading. That's what you are doing right now. Regardless of whether we talk about books or not, you are reading. Reading is important and we used to include book discussions all the time. In part, we don't do it now because it's much more difficult to have a discussion when you've got over 15 people participating. You don't see that number around a table on TV. In part, we don't see a great deal of books worth recommending. Janis Ian's book was picked as the best book for the year by the TCI community and it was our responsibility to have discussed it if for no other reason than that. But it also happens that we all loved the book and recommend it highly. If there's another book we feel is worth a discussion, we'll discuss it. I know there's one we're seriously considering.



Ty: On Janis Ian's book, Janice e-mails that she loved the book and checked it out at her library after she read the book discussion. Janis writes, "I was especially curious about the woman who sells the house because it was clearly something that a lot of you were offended by. I saw why it was offensive and one thing I would add is that what the woman did really fell under kicking someone when they're already down. I felt very sorry for Janis Ian during that because she really had nothing. She was trying to rebuild her career, the IRS was taking all of her checks and all she had was the house she co-owned and this woman sells it out from under her. It was low and it was dirty." I don't know if we mentioned it in the book discussion or not but back when we started doing those in 2005, we always pointed out that you could check bookstores and your libraries and that we are big supporters of public libraries. And that's pertinent to the next e-mail from community member Diane who writes of a development that she finds troubling. At her library system --



C.I.: Diane lives in Dallas, Texas and she won't mind that being noted. She's noted it before in comments she's wanted shared at The Common Ills.



Ty: Okay, thank you for adding that because it does allow us to pin it down. At their library system, there's a new policy. All the libraries have a cart by the check out desks and the cart has the latest DVDs and books. And to check out any of those, you pay five dollars. That's a one week check out and, after one week, you are fined. Diane finds this troubling because a public library is supposed to be a public library. It is not supposed to offer two levels of service, it is supposed to treat all patrons equally.



Betty: Can I jump in? I agree with Diane. As you're describing it, there is not one level, there is two. If I want -- I'm having a hard time thinking of a book that's just come out.



C.I.: Let me offer Dallas the chance to come in on this. If he wants to.



Dallas: Sure. Okay, Betty, an example could be Mark Wahlberg's The Happening. That's one I saw last month, a DVD, on the cart at my branch. They emphasize the DVDs and any book that they think would be a bestseller. John Grisham's got a new book out and you've got copies on the cart of it. Does that help?



Betty: Yes, it does, thanks. Okay, so I want The Happening. Or better yet, because I do have kids, one of my kids wants it. I've got pay five dollars? We're checking out, we've got our books and whatever else, and we're checking out and my son sees The Happening and he starts saying, "Mommy, I need that." I mean, first off, that offends me because, as a parent, I'm used to that in the grocery store, I shouldn't have to put up with it in a public library. This, "Let's put some pricey items by the register" being what I shouldn't have to put up wiht. Second, it offends me because I may not have five dollars and does this mean I'm less of a patron? Yeah, it does because there are things that I do not have access too in this alleged public library.



Mike: I think --



C.I.: Mike, can we come back to you in a second? Is that okay?



Mike: Sure.



C.I.: Okay, Dallas, help me out because community members in your area have written suggesting a feature on Red Box. Do I have that right, Red Box?



Dallas: Red Box is a new thing in the city. It's been in a few places for maybe a year or so and now it's pretty much spread all over the city. How it works is that you've got, for example, a Wal Greens drug store and Red Box puts its machine outside by the entrance. You go up with your credit card and you can rent a DVD for a buck and tax. For one day, that's the cost. You can rent more than one at a time. But it's a self-serve machine. You press the screen for the DVD choices, you swipe your card, you type in your info, the machine spits out your DVD. You return it to the machine as well.



C.I.: Okay, the reason I'm asking you this is The Happening, not a new movie, why is anyone going to pay five dollars to borrow that DVD from the library when they get it for a dollar out of Red Box. Forget the other video rentals for a moment.



Dallas: That's a good point and when I saw someone pick up The Happening, someone in line ahead of me, and they were told it was five dollars, they said no thank you. That was at my library. Thursday I was downtown and a woman picked up The Rocker at the main branch. She walked over to the man saying, "Next in line" and, while I was still waiting in line, came back over to put The Rocker back. She said to me, "They want you to pay for this." I don't know how it's working out but I know it's upsetting people.



C.I.: Mike's waiting and I'm sorry to make him wait but Dallas lives there, he knows this story. So I just want a few more details. This is a cart of items, items new to the library, and the cart is right next to the check out desk?



Dallas: Right. It's called street something. Like "street date" or something. "Street Smart Express"! That's what it's called. Okay. So what I see, and I go to my branch and downtown, what I see is a lot of items on the cart that never get checked out. I don't know how much of a money maker it is but when you're charging for things you should be providing for free, I guess any amount qualifies for a 'money maker.' I go to the library at least once a week, at least. I have never seen anyone check out an item from that cart. I have twice seen people pick up items, learn that there was a cost and put them back.



C.I.: Mike, you can speak in a second but I'm going to be really brutal here. They're a public library. If they're making a profit off the rental -- and it is a rental if people are paying money for the items -- there may be liability issues. CDs? I believe the US Copyright Act of 1984 made it very clear that sound recordings could not be rented. Parts of the act have been repealed or modified but, unless I'm mistaken, that section still stands. In addition, the book publishing business is having dire problems. If public libraries are profiting from books via rental fees you better believe the publishers are going to want a stake of that money. It's stupid and it's idiotic to push that program. The only thing that may make them reconsider is whether or not it is also illegal? If they continue the program, someone may decide to put the matter before a judge. I'm going to toss to Mike now because I'm pretty sure he's going to the money issue and thanks for letting me jump in, Mike.



Mike: No problem. Yeah, I was going to the money. If I go in to a library and see that, my attitude is going to be, "They're charging? Why the hell am I paying taxes?" And I say that, please note, with a mother who goes to every meeting when there's talk of cutting the budget for our local libraries. She goes to protest those cuts. I firmly believe public libraries need more money not less. But if they're charging, my attitude's going to change.



Stan: I'd agree with Mike. They're charging five dollars for a rental. Blockbuster doesn't get away with that. My attitude would be, well, you're on your own. We don't give tax money to Blockbuster to stay in business. I find that really offensive and agree with Betty and Diane that it's creating two levels of customers.



Rebecca: Can I use my sole time any way I want? I haven't spoken yet and I would gladly toss my time to C.I. who stopped quickly but I think might have more to say re: legal.



Ty: C.I.?




C.I.: Well, I did stop quickly. That's because I was sitting there building the case in my head. Let's use the Jonas Brothers as an example, okay? Let's say their latest CD comes out Tuesday and the Dallas public library system decides they're going to put it on their Street Smart Express cart and charge people five dollars a pop. Again, I think it's debatable whether they have that right or not. But here's what I do know. Just sticking with sound recordings, they are opening up a can of worms because, as Betty and Diane are saying, charging money means that it's not available to all. There are two levels -- Stan made the point as well. This matters, and bear with me a second, because if we're suing because we want money, we're going to build the case. And one of the things we'll use is all of our power. For example, currently libraries can make a copy -- a single copy -- of a sound recording and allow that to go out for distribution to protect their original. But that right is built around -- this in writing, this in the Copyright Act of 1984 -- the premise that they have an archive that's open to the public. Define archive. Define whether or not the Jonas Brothers' new CD is in that archive. That's how the case would be played out in court. It wouldn't just be, "Five dollars!" It would go to the heart of the system, it would go to every existing law. When the Jonas Brothers CD is entered into the library system, it is part of the archive immediately. Is it available for all? "Open to the public"? The library may say, "Yes, after X number of days, it moves off our Street Smart Express Cart into the general system." The copyright holder may argue, "Then it's not available. Then it's not open to the public." That's when a judge has to decide or Congress finds itself being asked to revist the law. Or both. That's it except to ask if we can get some sort of link to this program because I know an e-mail or two will come in saying it was made up. We've got an idiot insisting I'm wrong about who wrote Fleetwood Mac's "Don't Stop." It was Christine McVie, not Lindsey Buckingham, I don't care what Danny Goldberg's stupid book says. And we'll do a short entry on that next week. But can we get a link in here when this is published going to something at the Dallas library system's website on this program?



Dallas: Yeah.



Ruth: I will jump in quickly just to say I have not heard of such a thing before. The whole point of a public library system is that its items are available to the public. The idea that if you have five dollars to toss around for every book, movie and CD you want to check out means you can get a better level of service goes against the entire concept that a public libary was built around. I really find that concept of charging to be distasteful.



Ty: Just tossing it out there, is anyone supporting the decision to charge five dollars for new, presumably popular, items?



Cedric: I don't know if it comes off in the reading, but Ruth's entire response was said in a shocked voice and I share her shock. I'm just kind of thrown by the whole idea that a library would charge money to borrow items. Or, for that matter, display such items at the check out counter. I find that offensive. My father died when I was a kid. My grandparents pretty much raised me. They still had kids at home. When we went to the library, which we did all the time, it was because we could get books and I think cassettes and records, and get them without having to pay. That was a very big deal. And the idea that someone who is in the same situation I was, someone whose grandparents really do not have the money to raise another kid, some kid like me is going to be at the library and see all the pretty new items on that cart and know that he or she can't have them because, even though this a public library, only the people who pay can pick them up off that cart and walk out with them. That just really ticks me off. I want

Wally to speak to this because he lost his father when he was a little kid and his mother and grandfather raised him. I want to see if it's just me?



Wally: No. You know that a lot of our experiences were similar. And if it was the weekend, my grandfather took me to the library. During the summer, he took me several times a week to the library. And I mean, it was exciting. It was fun. And I remember this one librarian I hated who would tell me I was in the adult section. I wasn't playing, I was talking. I was looking at books. I don't remember how old I was but we went to the library all the time and I started reading fiction -- not children's fiction or young adult -- early because of that. So I remember my grandfather coming up during this woman's little tirade against me and my grandfather saying, "Any book in this libary he intends to read, he can check out. This is a public library." And that was great because who doesn't like their grandfather sticking up for them but it was also great because I'd never really thought about it like that but it was true, everything in that public library that could be taken out, I could check out. That card, and I had my own card, made me a library member and I was the same as any other library member. We couldn't have afforded the new stuff, growing up, if they'd done a cart and charged five dollars for the items. That's just reality. And, no, the library wouldn't have felt like my library.



Ty: Okay, Dona's giving me a signal to wind down. I'm going to go to another e-mail, our last, and I'm choosing it because Kat hasn't spoken. She's the only one who hasn't. Kat, Mallory wants to know why there aren't more CD reviews from you at The Common Ills and why there are not more music pieces here?



Kat: My reviews? Didn't I already write two for January? I only agreed to 12 pieces a year and one of those is the year-in-review. So I think I'm ahead of the schedule currently. In terms of here, Dona mentioned we'd long been planning a Dolly Parton piece. It goes to what we have time for and what we manage to get to on any given week. We've actually done a great deal of music pieces in the last three months here. I don't believe that we have anything planned for this week but we've don't have time for it this week.



Ty: Tossing to Ava who I just realized didn't speak.



Ava: Questions or comments or complaints can be e-mailed to us at thirdestatesundayreview@yahoo.com. When possible, we will include them in a mailbag or work them into another feature such as a roundtable. We're not a blog, we're an online magazine. "Mailbag" is a feature created to try to address questions, comments and complaints. It appears regularly. You're writing an e-mail does not require us to respond in any form including in a "Mailbag" feature. For example, anyone asking about a book discussion again this year will be blown off because we have addressed it and addressed and addressed it. If your question or comment or complaint is for one person in particular, name them. Third Estate is Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess, C.I. and myself. All others participating -- except for Dallas -- have their own websites. The roundtable Rebecca ran resulted in questions here because so many of us participated in it. Point, most of the time, your issues with what went on at some other site -- positive or negative -- are not going to be included in a "Mailbag."