Sunday, April 26, 2015

Truest statement of the week

In a parenthetical statement in the essay, Dyson recalls a private discussion he had with Obama in the White House. Later on, he writes that, “Throughout his presidency I have offered what I consider principled support and sustained criticism of Obama,” and states he has “expressed love for Obama and criticized him for not always loving us back.” A quick look at the White House visitor records helps paint a picture of this cozy relationship.
Dyson’s affection for Obama certainly shines through the work; even the scantest of criticisms is hard to come by. In perhaps the most ludicrous, topsy-turvy moment in the extended work, Dyson claims “Obama talks right … but veers left public policy,” whereas “West, on the other hand, talks left but thinks right.” In the real world, the exact contrary is true: Obama talks center-right and veers decidedly right on policy. Obama is and has always been a conservative. The Obama the Conservative project meticulously detailed his right-wing policies for years.
The evidence overwhelmingly shows that Cornel West is absolutely correct in his insistence that Obama “posed as a progressive and turned out to be counterfeit. We ended up with a Wall Street presidency, a drone presidency.” This presidency is also built upon the expansion of murderous imperialism in the Middle East, upon the adoption of neoliberal trade agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) (often described as “NAFTA on steroids”), upon the mass deportation and inhumane and illegal internment of millions of Latin@ immigrants and refugees, upon the privatization of prisons, upon the McCarthyist crackdown on whistleblowers, and more.
According to Dyson, West “derides” Obama as a “neoliberal opportunist.” This is not derision. This is an objective fact. Obama is a neoliberal through and through. He has made it his singular mission to pass the TPP and gut regulatory and labor laws, using secretive, anti-democratic methods in order to do so.



-- Ben Norton, "Liberals' Attacks on Cornel West Expose Their Political Bankruptcy" (CounterPunch).














Truest statement of the week II


Black America has plummeted to such economic depths under Obama’s watch that there is no possibility of ever reaching economic parity with whites absent a social revolution, the beginnings of which we may be witnessing in the growing mobilization against brutal police enforcement of the oppressive social order.
It is no wonder that so many members of the Black political class, especially those that style themselves as “progressives,” are now anxious to revise their Obama-era political histories to put a false distance between themselves and the outgoing administration. Which is why I found it curious that Georgetown University professor and preacher Michael Eric Dyson thinks this is an auspicious time to unleash a bloated, mean-spirited and politically flatulent assault on Dr. Cornel West, a Black public intellectual who risked his “icon” status by breaking with Obama early in the president’s first term, when the center-right nature of his corporation-serving administration became manifest.
Dyson is clearly haunted by “The Ghost of Cornel West,” as The New Republic article is titled. In Georgia, the older country folks used to say that when a “haint” (a ghost) got on top of you in your sleep, you became temporarily paralyzed – a condition sometimes called “being rode by a witch.” Dyson’s obsession with West seems to have paralyzed those parts of his brain that process political facts and issues. In almost 10,000 words, Dyson makes no reference to any substantive political issues that divide he and West, and offers only the slimmest assessment of Obama’s stance on the burning issues of the day. Given such a dirth of actual political analysis of either the Obama presidency or Cornel West’s critique of that presidency, the article is a soaring testament to Dyson’s enormous capacity for bloviation.
But, of course, there is method to Dyson’s meanness. The true purpose of his elongated smear of Dr. West is to demonstrate to Hillary Clinton’s camp that Dyson remains a loyal Democratic Party operative who is available for service to the new regime. Having observed how hugely Al Sharpton prospered as President Obama’s pit bull against Black dissent, Dyson offers unto Caesarius Hillarius (“We came, we saw, he died,” as she said of Gaddafi) the iconic head of the nation’s best known Black dissident. 


-- Glen Ford, "Seeking Hillary's Favor: Dyson Attacks Cornel West" (Black Agenda Report).














A note to our readers

Hey --


Well we made it on a Sunday.

First, we thank all who participated this edition which includes Dallas and the following:




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),
Mike of Mikey Likes It!,
Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz),
Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix,
Ruth of Ruth's Report,
Wally of The Daily Jot,
Trina of Trina's Kitchen,
Marcia of SICKOFITRDLZ,
Stan of Oh Boy It Never Ends,
Isaiah of The World Today Just Nuts,
and Ann of Ann's Mega Dub.


What did we come up with?

Ben Norton gets his first truest. 
Glen Ford gets another truest. 
The forgotten massacre.  The ignored massacre.  
Ava and C.I. take on the networks giving early renewals that they now wish they could take back and Barack, two days after expressing regret over killing 2 hostages, clowning and funning.
This was a piece C.I. planned for The Common Ills but we needed it here so she, Ava, Wally and Kat gladly brought their notes to us and we all worked on it finding what we felt was key from the hearing.

Short feature.
Oh those political campaigns.
We didn't.
A repost of C.I.'s writing. 
What we listened to. 
Repost of Great Britain's Socialist Worker. 
Repost of Elizabeth Warren's campaign post. 
Press release from the office of the Chair of the House Veterans Affairs Committee Jeff Miller.
Press release from the office of the Chair of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee Johnny Isakson. 
Press release from IAVA.
Mike and the gang wrote this and we thank them for it.


Peace.




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


Editorial: Hawija, the forgotten massacre

Even on the second anniversary of the Hawija massacre, no one could be bothered in the US.



In Iraq, they remembered.

Iraqi Spring MC certainly remembered:









Nouri's slaughter.  The April 23, 2013 massacre of a sit-in in Hawija which resulted from  Nouri's federal forces storming in.  Alsumaria noted Kirkuk's Department of Health (Hawija is in Kirkuk)  announced 50 activists have died and 110 were injured in the assault.   AFP reported the death toll eventually (as some wounded died) rose to 53 dead.   UNICEF noted that the dead included 8 children (twelve more were injured).


They were peaceful protesters.

The 2010 Iraqi vote was overturned by US President Barack Obama who insisted thug Nouri al-Maliki get a second term despite his political slate coming in second once the votes were counted (and then recounted when Nouri stomped his feet).


The US-brokered Erbil Agreement gave Nouri a second term.

The political leaders signed off on the contract which found them agreeing Nouri would get a second term and found Nouri agreeing, in exchange for that second term, certain things they wanted, like his agreeing to political sharing, agreeing to implement Article 150 of the Iraqi Constitution and his creating an independent national security commission and . . .

You know what?

It doesn't matter.

Because Nouri used the contract to get his second term but refused to honor his promises in it.

And the White House that had said the contract had their full backing?

They dummied up and pretended not to know anything.

So it was left to Iraqi leaders to demand the contract be honored.

Cleric and movement leader Moqtada al-Sadr joined with Iraqiya's Ayad Allawi and KRG President Massoud Barazni (among others) to demand in the summer of 2011 that Nouri implement the contract.

He refused.

So as 2011 turned to 2012, the demand became, implement it or we will hold a vote of confidence in Parliament.

They were playing by the rules.

The US wasn't.

Once the signatures were gathered for the no confidence vote, the US pressured spineless Jalal Talabani (then president of Iraq) not to present the petition to Parliament.

And that's when the Iraqi people were stripped of their votes, where their leaders were overruled and when they were left with nothing but protest.

Nouri's response was to attack them.

He called them "terrorists."  He had his forces attack them.  He had his forces intimidate them by following them to their homes.

He did this publicly.

And the world turned a blind eye.

That's how Iraq arrived at its current state.


The Hawija massacre is one of the most important Iraq stories of the last eight years but it's also one that has been ignored by most US outlets.


Also ignored was the lack of an investigation into the assault.

April 24, 2013,   US State Department spokesperson Patrick Ventrell declared, "I don't have an update from yesterday, other than to say you heard us --  well, the only update is I believe that the Iraqi Government has called for an investigation. So we do want a fair, transparent, timely investigation that has broad participation."


But if they wanted it, they never demanded it.

And the State Dept. never again mentioned the investigation or Hawija.


 BRussells Tribunal carried a translation of one activist who was an eye-witness to what went down:



 



I am Thamer Hussein Mousa from the village of Mansuriya in the district of Hawija. I am disabled. My left arm was amputated from the shoulder and my left leg amputated from the hip, my right leg is paralyzed due to a sciatic nerve injury, and I have lost sight in my left eye.
I have five daughters and one son. My son’s name is Mohammed Thamer. I am no different to any other Iraqi citizen. I love what is good for my people and would like to see an end to the injustice in my country.

When we heard about the peaceful protests in Al-Hawija, taking place at ‘dignity and honor square’, I began attending with my son to reclaim our usurped rights. We attended the protests every day, but last Friday the area of protest was besieged before my son and I could leave; just like all the other protestors there.

Food and drink were forbidden to be brought into the area….

On the day of the massacre (Tuesday 23 April 2013) we were caught by surprise when Al-Maliki forces started to raid the area. They began by spraying boiling water on the protestors, followed by heavy helicopter shelling. My little son stood beside me. We were both injured due to the shelling.

My son, who stood next to my wheelchair, refused to leave me alone. He told me that he was afraid and that we needed to get out of the area. We tried to leave. My son pushed my wheelchair and all around us, people were falling to the ground.

Shortly after that, two men dressed in military uniforms approached us. One of them spoke to us in Persian; therefore we didn’t understand what he said. His partner then translated. It was nothing but insults and curses. He then asked me “Handicapped, what do you want?” I did not reply. Finally I said to him, “Kill me, but please spare my son”. My son interrupted me and said, “No, kill me but spare my father”. Again I told him “Please, spare my son. His mother is waiting for him and I am just a tired, disabled man. Kill me, but please leave my son”. The man replied “No, I will kill your son first and then you. This will serve you as a lesson.” He then took my son and killed him right in front of my eyes. He fired bullets into his chest and then fired more rounds. I can’t recall anything after that. I lost consciousness and only woke up in the hospital, where I underwent surgery as my intestines were hanging out of my body as a result of the shot.

After all of what has happened to me and my little son – my only son, the son who I was waiting for to grow up so he could help me – after all that, I was surprised to hear Ali Ghaidan (Lieutenant General, Commander of all Iraqi Army Ground Forces) saying on television, “We killed terrorists” and displaying a list of names, among them my name: Thamer Hussein Mousa.

I ask you by the name of God, I appeal to everyone who has a shred of humanity. Is it reasonable to label me a terrorist while I am in this situation, with this arm, and with this paralyzed leg and a blind eye?

I ask you by the name of God, is it reasonable to label me a terrorist? I appeal to all civil society and human rights organizations, the League of Arab States and the Conference of Islamic States to consider my situation; all alone with my five baby daughters, with no one to support us but God. I was waiting for my son to grow up and he was killed in this horrifying way.
I hold Obama responsible for this act because he is the one who gave them these weapons. The weapons and aircrafts they used and fired upon us were American weapons. I also hold the United States of America responsible for this criminal act, above all, Obama.


 









TV: If They Could Turn Back Time

It was Cher.

We were talking to a Fox exec about the lamest sitcom ever aired by any network, Will Forte's The Last Man On Earth, and the exec was fumbling with a response about how the second season wouldn't be happening if, "like that song in the 80s, I could make time go backward."

It was Cher, who, in 1989 had a hit with "If I Could Turn Back Time."

1tv


And it's a song a lot of people are probably humming these days.

It's doubtful Barack Obama is.  But he should be.

After Saturday night, he certainly should be.

Thursday, the President of United States declared:


This morning, I want to express our grief and condolences to the families of two hostages.  One American, Dr. Warren Weinstein, and an Italian, Giovanni Lo Porto, who were tragically killed in a U.S. counterterrorism operation.
Warren and Giovanni were aid workers in Pakistan devoted to improving the lives of the Pakistani people.  After Warren was abducted by al Qaeda in 2011, I directed my national security team to do everything possible to find him and to bring him home safely to his family.  And dedicated professionals across our government worked tirelessly to do so.  We also worked closely with our Italian allies on behalf of Giovanni, who was kidnapped in 2012. 
Since 9/11, our counterterrorism efforts have prevented terrorist attacks and saved innocent lives both here in America, and around the world.  And that determination to protect innocent life only makes the loss of these two men especially painful for all of us.  Based on information and intelligence we have obtained, we believe that a U.S. counterterrorism operation targeting an al Qaeda compound in the Afghanistan-Pakistan border region accidently killed Warren and Giovanni this past January.
Yesterday, I spoke with Warren’s wife Elaine and Prime Minister Renzi of Italy.  As a husband and as a father, I cannot begin to imagine the anguish that the Weinstein and Lo Porto families are enduring today.  I realize that there are no words that can ever equal their loss.  I know that there is nothing that I can ever say or do to ease their heartache.  And today, I simply want to say this:

As President and as Commander-in-Chief, I take full responsibility for all our counterterrorism operations, including the one that inadvertently took the lives of Warren and Giovanni.  I profoundly regret what happened.  On behalf of the United States government, I offer our deepest apologies to the families. 


Grief.

Regret.

What a solemn statement.

Two innocents killed in The Drone War, two innocents that were killed by Barack.

Thursday, he stands before the nation declaring his sadness and grief that, as the President of the United States, he has killed two innocent civilians.

48 hours later, he's yucking it up at a big moneyed dinner which pretends to be about journalistic scholarship but is really just another event where those with big money self-stroke -- is it any wonder Barack felt at home?

At a time when murdering two undisputed innocents should have resulted in solemn reflection on his part -- or at least the appearance of it -- he was instead making a public spectacle of himself and further calling into question not only his actions which resulted in the deaths of Warren Weinstein and Giovanni Lo Porto but also his remarks supposedly expressing grief.


There he was implying swearing with "bulls**t" being cut off at "bull" by his "translator" "Luther" who also decoded phrases to explain Barack meant "hold on to your lily White butts."

Yes, a crowd of overpetted press who were let out of the pens for the night and a lot of minor TV stars whose 'fame' couldn't fill an episode of Hollywood Squares guffawed but they really aren't known for either grace or character, are they?

And Saturday's event won't be forgotten.

Barack could have bowed out and probably should have.

Barring that, he could have spoken with gravity.

Instead, he opted for hilarity, cheapening his statements on Thursday and the stature of his office.  At the end of all his jokes, he did attempt to get serious.  Even there he suffered.


We remember journalists we lost over the past year—journalists like Steven Sotloff and James Foley, murdered for nothing more than trying to shine a light into some of the world’s darkest corners.  We remember the journalists unjustly imprisoned around the world, including our own Jason Rezaian. For nine months, Jason has been imprisoned in Tehran for nothing more than writing about the hopes and the fears of the Iranian people, carrying their stories to the readers of the Washington Post in an effort to bridge our common humanity. As was already mentioned, Jason’s brother, Ali, is here tonight and I have told him personally we will not rest until we bring him home to his family, safe and sound.

And what of Ned Parker?

Just this month, he had to flee Iraq because he was being publicly threatened on social media, on Iraqi TV and by Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi.


As criticism mounts, and it will, Barack may find himself humming along to "If I Could Turn Back Time" like so many others.

Like The CW.


"Minor TV stars whose 'fame' couldn't fill an episode of Hollywood Squares"?

Remember that from just a little while ago?

Yes, we're talking about people like Gina Rodriguez.

She was there, surprising many with the performance she and Henri Esteve put on.

If only she put so much energy into her televised performance, Jane The Virgin might not be such a ratings disappointment.

"The show that sends them fleeing" is how it's being dubbed.

Last Monday, The Originals delivered 1.3 million viewers, the heavily praised Jane reduced that lead in to 1.05.  The CW suits are finally admitting that they made a mistake January 11th in renewing the show.  They were influenced by the Golden Globe nomination Gina received.  And while she went on to win the award and that gave the show a boost -- the boost was only for one week.  People sampled the show and then left.

But The CW is far from alone in being riddled with regret.

ABC execs are wishing they had a time machine ("and a lion tamer") with regards to Shonda Rhimes.

Fall started with Shonda being ABC's biggest asset.

She's now their greatest liability.

Back in February, we noted:

Katherine Heigl is not a bitch and the fact that Shonda Rhimes can't get over their conflict isn't reason for The Water Cooler Set to attack Heigl.  Considering her success, we think Shonda should have been a lot more gracious or at least kept her mouth shut.  She may think it's amusing but she's a woman and her one-sided cat fight with Heigl will later be used to help bring Shonda down -- probably in two years when Shondaland no longer seems new and the viewers fall away and The Water Cooler Set can really sharpen their knives on her.
Yes, Shonda, you dominate ABC TV.
Once so did Carsey-Werner -- and where are they on the ABC schedule today?




Two years?

Shonda's burned through good will much quicker than   we ever suspected was possible.

The firing of Patrick Dempsey has one ABC suit insisting this is "the last straw."

ABC thought Shonda was a winner but between her attacks on actors, her attacks on the press, her constant Tweets for TV 'justice' and all the rest, "angry" is now one of the kinder words that Alessandra Stanley and The New York Times could use to describe the woman ABC is describing as "out of control."

The whole point of keeping Grey's Anatomy on the air has been stability.

It's not been a ratings winner in years.

Back in season four (fall 2007 through spring 2008), a low rated episode brought in 'only' 18 million viewers.


This season, season 11, the show hit an all time low with an episode bringing in only 6.64 million viewers.  ABC wasn't on board with the departure of Dempsey (who was contractually set to appear in season 12 and season 13) but with the episode promoted around his character (but not revealing his character was being killed off) bringing in  9.55 million viewers, they think Shonda is "self-destructive."


Last fall, a Thursday built around Shonda programming seemed so smart.

And, for awhile, it was.

But February saw all three of Shonda's Thursday programs in serious trouble.

With regards to Scandal, we should disclose we were making money off of its demise.

Days after the January 29th return aired an ABC exec was bragging to us about the 10.48 million viewers the episode delivered.

We said enjoy it because the show is about to fall apart as a result of Shonda's decision to make Olivia Pope (played by Kerry Washington) a victim.  The audience would not embrace that.  The ratings were about to crater.

We felt we were right, he felt he was right, a $1,000 wager was made.

That wager has yet to be paid.

As the show has sunk in the ratings week after week, our friend has elected to double down.  We feel like we're taking candy from a baby as the wager continues to grow.  After it hit $10,000, we declared that when he paid our winnings -- which won't apparently come until the end of the season -- he could do so via a donation to St. Jude's,


Scandal's downward plunge has been shocking but completely understandable.  We expressed our initial concern when the 'gladiators' were two down (Harrison murdered and Abby off to the White House). But when Olivia became a victim, we stated the show had jumped the shark, that her kidnapping and her being sold, auctioned off, was so deeply offensive, that the audience wouldn't embrace it and we had to wonder if Shonda was on drugs?

Most likely, she's just a prisoner to a preening and out of control ego.

February was when Scandal began to crater, it was when Grey's faltered and it was when How To Get Away With Murder no longer mattered.

In the fall, the ratings average on the last one was over nine million an episode with the winter finale clocking in at 9.82 million viewers.  This was when the husband of series lead Annalise (played by Viola Davis) was murdered.  And then the show returned to announce that the one getting away with murder would not be the wronged and abused wife Annalise, but her college students.

Criminal defense attorney Annalise moped around, took to her bed for a rest cure and much worse as she went from series lead to bit player in an ensemble.  And the ratings reflected this.  After it was revealed Annalise was not the one who killed her abusive, cheating husband, no episode ever got nine million viewers again.  That's right, the winter finale of the show did better than the season finale.

But ABC made its decision in January (and Viola Davis leaked it at the end of that month) so February's struggling episodes?

It was too late for ABC to go back.

Now they're stuck with three Thursday programs which all saw massive ratings erosion as they aired throughout the spring.

If ABC could turn back time, How To Get Away With Murder would not be getting a second season. Shonda's famous for controlling three hours of prime time on one night.  Next season, she may be infamous as the show runner who sees not one, not two, but three shows canceled.

We started with Fox and that's where we'll wind down.  April 8th, Fox announced a second season for The Last Man On Earth.  The signs were already present.  The heavily promoted show had delivered viewers its first week (with back-to-back episodes) and then had cratered.  But Fox wasn't paying attention.  The ratings since then has underscored how unpopular the series is.


Right now, Fox, ABC and The CW are all swearing they will be much more cautious about announcing early renewals.

The insist they've learned their lesson.

We'd applaud that gained insight but the story of broadcast television in the 21st century really is a story of a refusal to ever learn from a mistake.
























How veterans are choosing health coverage (and why)

March 24th, the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee held a hearing on the Veterans Choice Act.  Among the witnesses appearing before the Committee were VA Deputy Secretary Sloan D. Gibson and Dr. James Tuchschmidt who is the VA's Acting Principal Deputy Under Secretary for Health.

In that hearing, many issues were addressed.

The issue we found particularly interesting was about veterans using other forms of medical coverage than VA.

Sloan explained that 70% of veterans are using the VA for prescriptions because it's "cheaper than getting their prescriptions filled elsewhere."

However, outside of that, the VA isn't pulling in majorities.





That became obvious in the exchange with Senator Thom Tillis (pictured above).



Deputy Secretary Sloan D. Gibson:  Two-third of our veterans over 65, they're Medicare eligible and they're already getting half of their care outside of VA.  We were talking earlier about continuity of care issues and how do you manage veterans health.  That's already a big challenge.

Senator Thom Tillis: That explains the date breakdown.  21 million veterans and 9 million of them --

Deputy Secretary Sloan D. Gibson:  Yes.

Senator Thom Thillis: -- using the system.



What does it mean financially to the US government if veterans over 65 are moving from VA coverage to utilizing Medicare instead?

James Tuchschmidt: If you look at our patient population today, 81% of them have some other form of insurance other than VA.  Two-thirds have Medicare.  So I think the question is if they're if the Out Of Pocket costs are different, lower than the VA, and the transactional cost are lower because you are not driving some place and the VA will pay for it, what is -- And that's the big question we're asking -- is "What percentage of that care will shift to some other payer to VA?"  In the end it might actually be cost neutral across the board for the federal government if the shift is from Medicare to VA.  But - but there clearly is a difference where that care is going to get paid.



What it means is likely a "cost neutral" effect since the federal government is the payer if its VA or Medicare.


What it means in terms of other issues?


The Committee failed to grasp -- because the witnesses didn't explain it -- a primary reason why a veteran might opt for Medicare over VA.


If you're going to a non-VA doctor for any reason and you want to use your VA coverage, you are required to secure a referral authorizing the visit from the VA.  This is not just an oral permission.  It must be on paper and you must present it at your appointment for your visit to be covered.

The Committee has not addressed this issue or the amount of time it imposes on veterans or their primary care givers.

If you're over 65 and you're going to a non-VA doctor and choose to ignore VA coverage but let Medicare cover it instead?

All you have to do is provide your Medicare number.

You don't need a referral.

This is an issue the Senate and House Veterans Affairs Committee should be exploring.




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

Kat, Wally, Ava and C.I. attended the hearing -- we're working from Ava and C.I.'s notes on the hearing for the above.

You know you're using the computer too much . . .






. . .  when you start to dream in auto fill.




















And they're off!





That's Martin O'Malley.  He's the former Governor of Maryland and some think he may soon declare he's running for the Democratic Party's presidential election.

Yes, it's that time of year where the press bores us all with horse racing and tries to pretend that they're covering actual issues.

Mike and Ann are already interested in O'Malley's campaign and may end up supporting his run (if he declares).

Others may back other candidates.

If you check our 2007 archives, when there were contested primaries (Democratic, Republican and, yes, the Green Party), you will see that we were not a monolithic voice.

We also had readers who supported John McCain's run.

That's fine with us.

If someone wins your support, if they earn your vote, you should support them.

We do not, however, believe that you vote for the lesser of two evils (or the greater of two evils).

You vote for who you believe in.

And if no wins your vote?

Then we support your right not to vote.

That is your right.

Barack stuck his smelly feet in his mouth last month with his ridiculous suggestion of "mandatory voting."

We are the United States.

We are not the USSR.

A right to vote also means a right not to vote.

If that's too confusing for some fascists, you have the right to worship in the US but you are not required to worship any religion.

By the same token, you have a right to vote but you are not required to vote.

We will share our opinions throughout the horse race -- especially in roundtables.

We will be hitting very hard any candidate -- such as Hillary Clinton -- who is a War Hawk.

That's where we stand.


If you ever feel that we have gotten your candidate wrong, feel free to e-mail us.  In fact, use two addresses on your e-mail: thethirdestatesundayreview@yahoo.com and common_ills@yahoo.com to ensure that we see it quickly.

In that e-mail, if there's something you want noted, say so and we'll include your quote.  Also state how you want to be billed.  ("A reader" is acceptable if that's all you want.)

We do not have to agree on who to vote for -- even those of us working on this edition do not have to agree -- but if you've got a candidate you believe in, we're happy for you and we're happy to note it.







Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License.
 
Poll1 { display:none; }