Sunday, April 22, 2007

The Nation Stats

nationstats

Again, we offer a two-fer. Blame it on slow mail. (The second issue arrived Saturday.) For those new to the feature, we're keeping a running tally of the number of women featured in The
Nation magazine compared to the number of men. (See last paragraph.) It hasn't been pretty. Mindy e-mailed last week to note that she now looks at the table of contents when determining whether to purchase or not "and I haven't bought an issue since January. 'Point,' as Ava and C.I. would say, I've learned not to judge a magazine by the cover."

The two issues this installment are the April 23rd issue and the April 30th issue.


April 23, 2007
Editorials & Comment
"Time to Act on Inequality" -- unsigned editorial
David Corn's "Trying to Stay out of Iran"
Juan Cole's "How To Get Out of Iraq" -- don't point out that he'd earlier advocated staying unless you want to hear him (wrongly) correct you as he did Steve Rendall recently on CounterSpin.
John Nichols' "Protecting The Vote"
Philip Weiss' "AIPAC Alternative?"
David Rosner and Gerald Markowitz' "Getting The Lead Out"

6 pieces.
Score: O women, 6 men (2 on one piece)

Columns
Calvin Trillin's "Romeny Finished First in Fundraising"
Patricia J. Williams' "Colorstruck"
AlterPunk's "The Politics of Pundit Prestige . . ." -- another column where AlterPunk makes like a diva Garland and tells tales of . . . being AlterPunk. We're waiting for the double disc set of AlterPunk at Carnegie Hall.

3 pieces.
Score: 1 woman, 2 men

Articles
Laura Flanders' "Bottom-Up Power"
Eyal Press' "The New Suburban Poverty"

2 pieces.
Score: 1 women, 1 man.

Critics:
Carmen Boullosa's Bolano pieces (which note no women artists in Mexico -- that's one way to ensure publishing in The Nation)
Andrew J. Bacevich's various reviews (it's rather obvious but if they've never seen the periodical guides, they need to create real titles for these pieces)
Martha Serpas' "Lying in the Middle of the Field (poem)"
Stuart Klawans on Black Book and Zodiac

4 pieces.
Score: 2 woman. 2 men.

Score this issue: 4 women, 11 men

Year to date score: 165 men, 41 women.

Turning to the April 30, 2006 issue.

Editorials & Comments
"Pelosi and Diplomacy" -- unsigned
Ari Berman's "Making Elections Fair" -- it's like Campaign Politics for Dummies
Jordan Stancil's "The French Connection"
John Ghazvinian's "Testing Time For Nigeria"
Victor Navasky's "Hiss in History" -- someone thought it was a cute title (part of the problem)

5 pieces.
Score: 0 women, 4 men.

Columns
Calvin Trillin's "On McCain's Trip to the Market . . ."
Alexander Cockburn's "The Ho Industry"
2 pieces
Score: 0 women, 2 men

Articles
William Greider's "The Establishment Rethinks Globalization" -- a sweet dream
Lawrence Goodwyn's "The Coming Party Realignment" -- more Campaign Politics
Scott Sherman's "Sun-Rise In New York"
3 pieces.
Score: 0 women, 3 men.

Critics
Gyan Prakash's on Dalrymple
Maya Jasanoff's on Green (the only female in the entire issue)
Mark M. Anderson on Kehlmann

Score: 1 women, 2 men.

Total score: 1 women, 9 men.

Year to date score: 42 women, 174 men.

The Nation has published 174 men this year and only 42 women.

That's 4.14 men for every woman.

The illustration to this piece is Katrina vanden Heuvel, editor and publisher of the magazine, surrounded by the magazine's staff. Consider the percentage of women featured in the magazine and you'll understand why she's surrounded by men.

Let's be really clear that, in 2007, 2 men for every woman wouldn't cut it. Let's be equally clear that there are more women in the US than there are men. But there's apparently a tokenism at play at The Nation which is why they have, thus far this year, printed pieces written or co-written by 42 women while publishing 174 pieces written or co-written by men. To give an equal number of bylines to women at this point, they would have to run 132.

The Nation is supposed to be the leading magazine of the left. Of course, it's easier to spout that belief if you don't read it. But how do they kid themselves that they are in any way reflective when the proportion of males receiving bylines is that much greater than women?

It's still breaks down to one woman gets a byline for every four men. We think that's not only non-reflective of the society we live in, we think that's disgusting.

The lack of women being featured in the magazine was brought to C.I.'s attention by a group of women late in 2006. For a column at Polly's Brew, C.I. went back and compiled the stats for that year. What we had discussed was following 2007's issues each time they arrived in the mailbox. Ava and C.I. were in charge of the December 24, 2006 edition and that was the first week that a 2007 issue had arrived (January 1, 2007 issue). They immediately started up "The Nation Stats." "The Nation Stats" ran again in our December 31st edition (covering the magazine's January 8, 2007 issue -- a "double issue"). January 21st, we covered the January 22nd issue in "The Nation Stats." January 28th, "The Nation Stats" covered two issues since two arrived the same day for three of us participating in this feature. February 4th, we covered the Feb 12th issue in "The Nation Stats." February 11th we covered the February 19th issue in "The Nation Stats." February 25th, we coved the February 26th issue in "The Nation Stats." March 4th we covered the March 5th and March 12th issues of the magainze in "The Nation Stats." March 11th, we covered the March 19th issue in "The Nation Stats." April 1st, we covered the March 26th and April 2nd issues in "The Nation Stats." April 8th, we covered the April 9th and April 6th issues in "The Nation Stats."

The summer reads

books

In "Mailbag ," Jess and Wally addressed the question about our summer read editions and Jess noted that if anyone wanted to know about those, we'd note it the next week. (The hour was late and our archives screwed up when we switched to Beta, so Jess didn't want Dallas spending additional hours hunting down links.)

The June 26, 2005 edition was our first summer read. Those who worked on that edition were:

Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess and Ava of The Third Estate Sunday Review;
Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude;
Betty of Thomas Friedman is a Great Man;
Kat of Kat's Korner;
and C.I. of The Common Ills

You can also be sure Dallas worked on it as well. The short story content was:

A Fractured Life (the Wally Lamb style book)
K-Boy Tries To Get Back Home (a horrific parable)
The Gleeful Boy (the Sue Miller type read)
Summer poetry: "Filling the Well"
Peek (the summer page turner)
Kooky Cokie Roberts offers up advice

Those were our six summer reads. (We also offered Five Books, Five Minutes, Editorial: Mainstream Press Do Your Homework on the pre-invasion bombings and TV Review OC: The arm pit of body wash operettas as well as highlights.) K-Boy was Ty's concept (and the short story that Wally mentioned last week). All have had different levels of popularity in the e-mails. Ty guesses the top three most popular were "A Fractured Life," K-Boy and "Peek." (The latter of which popped up in e-mails last week with requests that we don't forget the page turner this year.)

2006? We had to go to the archives and let's note we read the complaints but didn't grasp the problem. Click on "2006" (since we switched the template) and you get every feature for a two week period. You then have to click "older post" to go two-week by two-week. All 957. No break down by week on the side. We read about it in the e-mails, we just didn't get it. We do now. One more thing to add to the to-do list: try to fix the archives.

Now Dallas is a miracle worker and we were running fairly ahead of time so he started out searching the links down. And quickly cried, "Help!" 2005 wasn't a problem. Key words could be Googled and the edition pulled up. 2006? Who even remembered it? (Wally's correct, no one ever went back and re-read them -- although Ty may have gone back two days after it published to correct some typos -- he doesn't remember.) Even C.I. couldn't remember anything (a sure sign of trouble). Then C.I. remembered two titles and we were able to locate the edition, via Google, that way. Those who have complained that the archives are now a huge mess, you are correct, and we will try to fix them.

The June 4, 2006 edition was our second summer read. Working on that edition (along with Dallas) were:


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

The fiction offered:

Song of the War Hawks
Super Laura?
Once upon a time there were plenty of Baby Dumbasses
Sherman's Story
From a diary found in the Mayflower Hotel
The ones we never know
TV: TESR Investigates

"Wait!" Some scream. "Ava and C.I.'s TV commentary is there." Yes, and they often get creative (we love their 7th Heaven and Law and Order: Trial By Jury reviews to cite two other examples of when they've been creative). But the edition was crappying out. (We haven't re-read the stuff, we're just remembering the nightmare that was that edition.) So, as noted in that edition's note, we begged them to drop Pepper Dennis (Ava points out that if they had reviewed Pepper Dennis then, they'd have one more show to review now since PD is no longer on air) and write something that we could pass off as a short story as well. We'll note that the Mayflower Hotel is timely again since E!'s Ted Casablanca reported Friday that Bully Boy was back on the booze and Laura Bush was back in a hotel.

We don't remember "Super Laura." We know it is about Laura Flanders (RadioNation with Laura Flanders) and we know it was our second take (our first take was to make her a superhero and Dona hit the roof noting that Flanders is all about the power each person has -- good point then and now but it meant a piece we labored over for hours got tossed in the waste can). "The Ones We Never Know" came in a dream to C.I., the idea. Jess liked it first and then we started fleshing it out. We know that one was popular because it has popped up in e-mails frequently in the months since. No one can remember what the others are about. (The edition also contained "Editorial: The Clearing.")

Despite having few ideas and a ton of trouble, Cedric had offered a short story idea. It got dismissed through action if not word. C.I. had liked the idea and, perfectly understandable the way we work, wasn't even aware that we hadn't done it until the edition was completed. So
the following week, June 11, 2006 edition, contained an attempt at Cedric's idea teamed up with something C.I. brought to the table: Strange people (fictional recreation of reality). (Credit is the same as for the week prior's edition.)

Now there are parodies and spoofs throughout, edition after edition, but those were the designated summer reads. We do intend another summer read edition this June. (And we will try to figure out what to do about the archives.)

Highlights

Written and selected (unless otherwise noted) by Elaine, Betty, Rebecca, Wally, Cedric and Mike.

"The Supreme Court decision didn't 'just happen'" -- Trina (Mike's mother) and Wally's mother both asked (we think they worked this out together in one of their many phone calls each week!), "Could you highlight this?" Both seemed to be working from the same playbook by noting, "I don't think I've ever asked you note something before." :D Mothers, what are you going to do? Seriously, we're glad to note it and Ty said Marcia was "the first of many" also wanting this entry by C.I. noted. Marcia, "See this is the sort of the thing I'm going to really miss if C.I. stops in November of next year. I know this was 'dashed and dictated,' but find one other place online where you can get that kind of calling out, that kind of passion. I saw the news on a crawl across the screen and quickly went from shock to anger. This captured everything I felt."

"Make your own kind of salad in the Kitchen" -- Trina's latest. She's addressing salad and Kucinich. Her husband (Mike's father), calls this her "Freedom Post." He's only semi-joking. Nothing ticks Trina off more than people feeling they have to live up to others' expectations.


"Friedman takes a trip" -- last week, Betinna was dumped in the Bronx and walked back to the Flop House. Now she's out for blood. Be scared, Thomas Friedman, be very, very scared. (And be aware there are twists and turns still up the road.)

"The Alberto Gonzales Show" -- Jim pretty much demanded C.I. do this (it pulls from The Third Estate Sunday Review) and pretty much demanded we highlight it.

"No moment of silence here" -- Mike pissed is a fascinating sight. We agree with him, it pissed off as well.

"THIS JUST IN! DON'T DINE OUT WITH MAINSTREAM PRESS..." & "They bore you and they stick you" -- Mamas, don't let your babies grow up to be mainstream press . . . Wally and Cedric's joint-post which takes a look at the horse race handicappers who pretend they're journalists.

"showers & cesspools," "alberto: the crook with the bad memory," "grab bag," "not much" and
"bully boy involved in the gonzales crime spree" -- Rebecca's continued coverage of the Gonzales' crimes. She notes an apology to Joe, she never got around to writing much about her pregnancy last week. She'll try to this week.

"Ruth's Report" -- this went up late. We weren't even aware it was up until C.I. just passed that on. Ruth was going for (a) something brief and (b) noting Larry Bensky's upcoming departure from KPFA. Check it out.

"Nora Barrows-Friedman, John Walsh, Zinn" -- we liked this post for Elaine's observations and humor (Dolly Madisons!). We also picked it because most readers of her site know she loves Howard Zinn. (How much so? Mike wondered Monday night, when he, Elaine, Rebecca and Flyboy went to see Howard Zinn and Amy Goodman speak, if he needed to be jealous.) So the point: "Zinn." Why Zinn? Cedric and Wally links to EVERY community post (or entry, in C.I.'s case) in their posts. And each week, we tell ourselves that we'll do more to link to them. (Kat's the best about linking to them but even she forgets.) They're usually in a hurry. Now Kat and C.I. can make their titles however long they want, Betty also. The rest of us? Elaine, Mike, Rebecca, Cedric, Trina and Wally's sites display their titles of each post on the side and you can copy and paste those in a snap -- provided they are short enough that they don't cut off. So to help them out, we try to keep our titles short. (C.I.'s are usually grabbed from the mirror post.)
There have been questions about that before and "Zinn" was the perfect opportunity to explain that.


"Law and Disorder" -- Mike offers the breakdown for Law and Disorder. A lot to cover. And why is Mike always tired on Thursdays? Seriously, why?

"And the war drags on . . ." and "You just never know" -- this was a selection by stronger reader demand. C.I. and Kat each offer their take on a Thursday speaking engagement. We actually tried to do a piece on this for the online edition (the "scribbles" -- Dona's word -- will run in the print edition). Since we were unable to, we STRONGLY urge to read these two highlights. There are people who are not being reached or reached out to. There are people who feel excluded from the conversation. (Why shouldn't they? Check out this week's "The Nation Stats" and you'll see that it's still one woman for every four men featured in the magazine.)

Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Limited Engagement" -- Isaiah's another one we need to spotlight more at our sites. Why don't we? It's not as easy now that the Flickr program is used. The Hello program went dead. Prior to that, grabbing one of Isaiah's comics and reposting at our own sites was the easiest thing in the world.

"That's GOP trash, make no mistake" and "THIS JUST IN! TRASH RISES AND TRIES TO PASS AS DEM!" -- Cedric and Wally's joint-post. A piece of slime emerged from beneath a rock last week and thought that by posing as a Democrat he could come to Alberto Gonzales' rescue. He was wrong.

Sunday, April 15, 2007

Truest statement of the week

There is nothing good to say about Harold Ford. He never passed up a chance to proclaim hot man love for George W. Bush. He voted in favor of the occupation of Iraq and the awful bankruptcy bill. In an idiotic effort to get the support of redneck Tennesseans he claimed that his black grandmother was white. He made numerous pilgrimages to the Little Rebel Club to have photo ops with said rednecks worshipping the Stars and Bars. Ford is an enemy of progressive ideas and definitely an enemy to black America.

-- Margaret Kimeberley's "Harold Ford, Enemy of Black America" (Freedom Rider, Black Agenda Report)

A Note to Our Readers

Hey --
We've actually been later! :D (as Mike would say.)

We're fairly on time for us, maybe a little early. Let's note who worked on this edition:

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

Thank you to all. Thank you to Rebecca for photoshopping the illustrations (including three that would never upload to Flickr -- one of the reason we are late -- we were largely done three hours ago). Thank you to Dallas for locating links and being a soundboard.

So what have we got? (Jess sings "Not a lot." It's a Carole King song, I don't want to know.)

Truest statement of the week -- Margaret Kimberly. Telling the truth. If you don't check her out, you should. We think Black Agenda Report is on our links. If it's not, we'll put it on tonight. We also need to add Ron's site. The plan was to add those and a few others through last week. Forget it. Didn't happen. (Ty and C.I. corrected typos on Tuesday.)


Editorial: The disgusting silence on war resisters... -- one thing about problems and problems that delayed us posting was we ditched our written editorial (it went out with the print edition).
We wrote about the World Bank, half-assed. Isaiah does it much better in today's comic. We could live with what we wrote. That was our attitude for much of the edition: Can we live with it? Thanks to Vic for sending a highlight to C.I. We ended up with a topic we truly cared about.

TV: Wasted away in second banana-ville -- if you count the editorial that ran in the print edition, this was the last thing written other than this note. Ava and C.I. had a workout and then some (we'll get to it). We actually didn't intend for them to do this feature (we'll get to it). As the hours drug and drug, they had no idea what they were going to write, what show they were going to cover. We've seen last minute miracles from them before but this may be one of the better shocks. Well done.

1 Book, 5 Minutes -- This could have been longer. Dona told us we were the laziest ass people she'd ever seen (we'll get to it). We could have. It was planned as a quick feature and basically was.

Don Imus -- We'll get to it? We are now here. Don Imus. Last week. Who could write the story? Ava and C.I. It's what they've touched on repeatedly, sexism, racism, inclusion and exclusion. Those are topics that come through their TV commentaries. I (Jim) asked them for this piece, begged them when they were on the fence, badgered them the minute they got home (Kat, Ty and Jess met them at the airport). This was not what I wanted. I'm not insulting it, it's wonderful. But this was the first feature worked on. They finished it quickly and I looked it over and said, "No, no, no." Asked for a rewrite ("overhaul!" shouts Ava). Now during this, Dona had to attend an event for a friend out here. She said, "I expect everyone to be working and the edition to be half-way done when I get back." Well, expect in one hand . . . While Ava and C.I. were slaving through six rewrites (Ava insists it was seven), the rest of us (Jess, Kat, Ty and myself) were just sitting around the speaker phone chatting with Mike, Cedric, Elaine, Rebecca, Betty and Wally. Just shooting the breeze. For hours. It went by quickly and I had no idea so much time had passed. We were catching up and having fun. I'd stop every now and then to read over Ava and C.I.'s latest draft and say, "No, no, no." Let me talk about what I wanted. I thought this would be the substitute for the TV review. They could grab excerpts from various TV reviews and write around that. They'd have a commentary on Imus, who was TV, and other shows and that would be their TV review for the week. Dona walked in as I was saying, "No, no, No" (for the sixth time, Ava says seventh), grabbed the latest draft out of my hands (Ava and C.I. write in longhand, just FYI) and asked me what the hell I was doing. She sh-ed everyone and started reading. Then asked me, "What the hell's wrong with it? Seems pretty on the mark to me." Well, there was nothing wrong with it, it just wasn't what I wanted. As I said it, I realized how stupid that sounded. And Dona asked, "Exactly what the hell have the rest of you done." Silence. We got an ass tearing from Dona about how easy it is to say "No, no, no" to the only ones working while we sit around "on your asses, really you are the laziest asses, the laziest asses . . ." At some point, even she had to stop and laugh. But we were the laziest asses. I take responsibility for that. Wally mentioned sports and that had Betty, Jess, Mike, Cedric and me off on a tear for over an hour and a half. (Dona guesses "Much, much longer.") Dona asked Ava and C.I. what they thought of the piece they'd written. Noting that they'd been in Georgia (they got to visit with Betty, Kat was so bummed she couldn't get out of a photo shoot last week) and Tennessee and that the students they were meeting with repeatedly brought up Imus, brought up the coverage, brought up how offensive the whole thing was, they said they wanted to honor those voices. Dona said, "Put it back in. We'll edit it, just the three of us, and make it all work. Bring all the drafts and let's get it back in because the biggest point of last week was that the wrong voices were being heard." At that point, we quickly started work (Jess, Ty, Kat and myself) on illustrations to be able to show we'd produced something. Dona's not happy with the piece. She thinks Ava and C.I. did a wonderful job but there were two points that there was no way (from the third draft) to work in. (She says, "I let them down. They are strong editors, they just needed a pair of fresh eyes. I failed.") She says it's wonderful unless you've read that one section of the third draft. If you have, you know how much more wonderful it could be. They included the one excerpt from a commentary because Ty had suggested that one at some point (after they said, "Excerpt? We don't read the crap we write. How are we supposed to know what to excerpt from over two years of reviews?") While those of us here were doing the illustrations, we were also speaking with those by phone (Betty, Wally, Cedric, Mike, Elaine and Rebecca) to determine 10 reviews that we thought most strongly fit into the issues of inclusion and exclusion. I wrote up the intro for that causing Dona to say, "What do you know, you can do something tonight. One thing anyway." (I was laughing. Jess just said, "If people don't know how we are, they are going to think you and Dona were about to come to blows." This is just how we are.) So that's what took the bulk of the work -- time! Dona says "Time. The only ones working were Ava and C.I." So we were way, way behind.

Mailbag -- "Short features and don't give me any crap," said Dona. Ty said "10 e-mails" and you'll note, before we're done, Dona's already asking if we are?

What Would A Mud Flap Say If A Mud Flap Could Flap... -- Rebecca wanted to drop this into Ava and C.I.'s Imus thing. This topic, she wanted covered in that. They didn't want it. (It's alluded to but not really addressed.) Rebecca led the push for this and sold the resisters when she came up with the title. We can all remember the childhood rhyme (maybe it was a clapping game) but we can't remember the actual words. But it's the perfect title.

10 CDs listened to while writing this edition -- shorter cried Dona to one idea so Jess said, "How about a list --" "A list?" asked Dona, "Perfect."

Highlights -- Mike, Elaine, Rebecca, Wally, Cedric and Betty wrote this. Thank you for that.

McCain News -- Wally & Cedric repost that 20 e-mails said, "It's short, please post it in full!"

VOTE INSANE! VOTE JOHN MCCAIN! -- C.I. entry that is even shorter and was argued by a bit more that "You can repost this in full!"

So that's what we've got. Dona's gone through about a half a carton of cigarettes. C.I and Ava feel as though they've been run over by a truck (alert, I'm guessing at least one thing, maybe two, will be pulled by C.I. this evening -- everyone was too tired so look for a few sentences to disappear after we have slept and wake up). We can't believe we wasted so much time. Well, it's not a waste to catch up with friends. (Dona say: "I didn't waste time, I thought grown ups could watch themselves. Ava and C.I. didn't waste time as they were forced to churn out copy over and over again.") So off we go to bed.


See you next week.--
Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess, Ava and C.I.

Editorial: The disgusting silence on war resisters

If he had any doubts upon arriving here, big news from back home likely erased them.
It was 5 p.m. Wednesday when Linjamin Mull, stepping off a bus in downtown London, ended a two-week journey that turned him from an American soldier to expatriate, just as the Iraq war controversy flared again in the U.S.
That same day, the U.S. government announced troop deployments to Iraq -- a war Mull refuses to join -- will be extended from 12 to 15 months.
"Most people don't have the courage to leave," said Mull, a New York City social worker and graduate of Southern Connecticut State University.


The above was reported by Patrick Maloney in "U.S. soldier in London to avoid Iraq war" (Canoe News). Someone help The Peace Resister up, she just fell off her cloud. All together now, make her feel comfortable (she loves the Stones), "Hey you, knocked off of your cloud, knocked off of your cloud. Hey you, knocked off of your cloud, knocked off of your cloud."

You know what their silence does? It allows the same piece of crap right-wing at a certain 'posh' college (monied but it truly is the school of last resort) to continue their attacks on war resisters. Now we're not suggesting that the attacks would stop if The Nation got off its lazy ass and actually covered war resisters (or the peace movement), but we are stating that when they wrote that crap, it could be called out. So we saw the baby of a professional coach -- who has 'expanded' his name in college -- who went to a private religious schools in the suburbs he lived in (though he claims a big city in his byline which is a complete lie, he was in the sticks, the White sticks that so many moved to when they panic at the sight of a person of color) -- start 'singing' a new tune -- Baby Bad Ass. Baby Bad Ass just went to town on war resisters last week. He doesn't know any real tragedies in his own life (other than his parents' divorce) but damned if he didn't act like the wisest (or most intoxicated) know it all at the bar.

Of course that was only after Ease-on outta' Journalism embarrassed himself further (and who knew that was possible!) by printing a piece of crap from a centrist attacking war resisters. If you're wondering, he left the Journalism builidng some time ago. The door officially closed on him when he felt the need to say he wanted his crappy site to tell stories for Democrats and for Republicans -- both points of view! And those who don't belong to either party? And those who don't expect newsmen and newswomen to cater to a political leaning but just lay out the facts? They got left out too.

So let's be really clear, war resisters are getting crap from all over the place and our independent media is silent.

Get it through your heads, the coverage isn't cutting it. It's not informing and it's not covering. The silence on the arrest of Kyle Snyder at the request of the US military is shocking. He was to be arrested and deported from Canada. He ended up just arrested thanks to the work of many. So you have the US military giving orders and Canadian police following them in violation of Canadian policy and where the hell is the coverage of that?

Joshua Key. Are we still believing the lies there too? Winnie Ng stated clearly what happened. Three men, who stated they were Canadian police, showed up at her front door (in Canada) asking where Joshua Key was. Now there are so many lies that have been told, it may be confusing.

So let's deal with the fact that as soon as he heard about the visit, Jeffry House (thinking as Winnie did that this had to do with the US military) contacted the US military who, as of last week, had still not returned his calls. He is the attorney of record for Joshua Key.

Now the lie, the first one, came from the Canadian police: We know nothing!

Then it was followed with: None of our police visited, we know nothing!

Winnie Ng's character was (wrongly) called into question as the Canadian police avoided the truth. Only recently (see "Editorial: Shameful") did they admit that, uh, yes, one of their officers did visit Ng's home. And, woops, he visited with two men from the US military.

Woops?

The lie still standing (for those who choose to be or play stupid) is that the US military wanted to talk with Joshua Key about his book. They wanted more information about some of what he witnessed in Iraq.

Now, if that were true, they would've returned Jeffry House's calls. If that were true, they would have told Winnie Ng who they were instead of pretending they were Canadian police. In the US it is illegal to impersonate a police officer but in Canada, it's apparently as normal as chewing gum and crossing the street.

The New York Times had a really bad article that attempted to spin the self-check outs as men (no women were mentioned) who were just mad to go to Iraq, they could taste it, they wanted it, baby, they really, really wanted it. But see, they have PTSD. They have a trauma. That's what's preventing them. But damn it, if it weren't for the PTSD, every self-check out in the world would be over in Iraq because just like the paper's John F. Burns, they know that Iraqis want Americans occupying their country.

Yeah, buy that sh*t if you're stupid or a crap collector.

As the useless Democratic web (we wouldn't call them the left) applauded like trained seals and did their link fests of hoseannas, the little reality that was in the article went largely unnoticed. Self-check outs were on the rise, self-check outs had been undercounted and underreported by the US military since the start of the illegal war.

That should have awoken our independent media and even our so-called independent media. "Hmm, there really are a lot of self-check outs, just like some have been saying all along. I dismissed it because I live by the official numbers and, goodness-golly, my government would never lie to me. I should cover this!"

Forget it, didn't happen. Camilo Mejia can tell you about the number that greet him, congratulate him and tell him they have self-checked out. Anyone even slightly involved in the issue knew the earlier numbers were lies. (Several called the numbers out as lies. Applause for them.)

We'll assume the Democratic web is too damn busy straining their necks to avoid seeing that the two measures that passed in the Congress do not bring all troops home, do not compell Bully Boy to bring any if he wants to reclassify them or just use the all purpose "national security" excuse. The poor things are nearly doing a Linda Blair in order to avoid seeing the obvious, the Democratic leadership bought the war with both measures, they fully funded Bully Boy's request (and tacked on a hell of a lot of pork to the bills as well).

So we really don't expect the Party Hacks to do a damn thing on or for war resisters.

And we'll even cut slack for two individuals: Amy Goodman and Aaron Glantz who have covered this movement. If they're attitude was, "I've covered it and covered it" -- if that made them want to take a break, we wouldn't be thrilled, but we'd understand. It must be very difficult to always be the one who steps up. [Note: Goodman and Glantz are not party hacks. A transition was lost when C.I. pulled a very detailed paragraph. C.I. has noted, "Like Anais Nin, I can pan life for fiction and we may have some very interesting short stories this summer." To which Rebecca added, "People think it's me, but my sex life has been nothing compared to C.I.'s and if C.I. starts with a certain independent media person who said he was divorced, the least of his lies, and writes up that story, it will be riveting for readers and very uncomfortable for all who know the story."]

The rest of you? "The war raged for years and I covered . . . DC getting the vote (again and again and again and again and . . .)." Or, "The 2008 elections! I started covering it non-stop in January 2007! I did the same thing with the 2006 elections!"

Don't offer us your lousy horse racing ("For the left!" said in Woody Allen tones), your half-baked columns and tell us we have been informed.

Two words for you: Molly Ivins.

Lot of shared stories, lot of tributes. It's really easy to say, "I loved Molly Ivins." It's a lot harder to demonstrate that with any action such as doing what she intended to do. Ivins can't cover Iraq with every column now and all those Molly-lovers must be so traumatized by her passing that just the mention of Iraq sends them off sobbing.

We're sick of it. We're tired of it. And if you're one of the ones complaining (in e-mails or to friends) that this community is, in the words of one, "just out of control!" You don't know the half of it. We will step it up. We will take it up a notch. The war continues. The war drags on.
And what the hell are you doing and what the hell have you done? You're real at begging for money (and, no, that's not a slam at Pacifica, we're referring to print media) but what do you use it for? The text equivalent of the Sunday chat & chews -- from the left! Or the slightly left these days.

So hover over your keyboards, prepare to whine to mutal friends (some of whom you'll send to plead your cases and it won't work anymore), prepare yourself because your silence allows the illegal war to continue and we're not going to aid you or abet you. We're not going to be complicit in your desire to prolong the war long enough to get a win for the Democratic Party in 2008. We're tired of it and we're surprised you're not. Crawling around on your knees must be very difficult, none of you are toddles, and it's past time you learned how to stand.

TV: Wasted away in second banana-ville




Andy Richter Controls The Universe. Oh, if only that were true.

Richter found fame on Late Night with Conan O'Brien. As more than a modern day Ed McMahon, Richter was featured in skits throughout his run. Our personal favorite was when they took Barbara Walters' interview with Monica Lewinsky and spliced Richeter into it answering Walters' question. The comic high is Richter quoting from Jewel's "Hands" and the reaction shot of Walters. Richter at the top of his game is a subversion played straight.

Leaving Late Night, he soon showed up starring in the short-lived Andy Richter Controls The Universe -- the less said, the better. Next up came Quintuplets which only made things worse. Richter trapped in a family sitcom playing the Alan Thicke role? Where was the subversion in that?

His most promising TV moment in recent time was his portrayal of "Sad Dad" on The New Adventures of Old Christine. NBC recently started airing (and cancelled last Monday) Andy Barker, P.I. The episodes are available (for now) online. There is some talk of running them again this summer. If that happens, the show could get the kind of lift that brought Filthy Rich (briefly) back from the dead. But the talk of the re-running them isn't that strong.

What did you see or what did you miss?

Andy Barker, P.I. had a lot going for it and came the closest to what makes Richter funny. The premise was he is an accountant who is mistaken, in his new office, for a private detective. Feeling that he has to help the woman in need, he investigates and is actually good at it. That's how he becomes Andy Barker, P.I.

The show? Clea Lewis (Audrey from Ellen) was very funny as Barker's wife Jenny. But her bookend appearances, early on and at the end, seemed a wee bit too much Mrs. Kotter. The show appeared to be attempting a comic spoof of the NBC Sunday Night Mysteries but with Jenny bookended and no Mildred around, it came off more like McLoud and less like McMillian & Wife.

The most obvious problems? Harve Presnell (playing Lew), Marshall Manesh (as Wally) and Tony Hale (as Simon). Are they bad actors? No. Did they give bad performances? No. So what's the problem? The three were the sidekicks. One would think that Richter, a former sidekick, would grasp that you need only one sidekick. Watching the three of them (Manesh is Iranian-American, the other two are White) chase down the clues, you're always aware that each scene was too crowded and way too male.

There was another female in the cast, Nicole Randall Johnson (as Nicole) who became (by her own decision), Richter's assistant after she was fired because he stole information from her old job. You might assume that, as the assistant to the private detective, Nicole would be a character in every episode. Assuming that would make you wrong. Despite adding a lift to the proceedings every time she was onscreen, Randall Johnson was rarely onscreen.

Randall Johnson is African-American (and on Mad TV) so including her as regular means there were two women in the cast, two non-White characters and three White males. Better than most of the odds on TV if still not reflective of society at large.

The biggest 'element' that didn't work was Lew. A retired P.I. Richter looks up to? He's already coming off like a boy chasing down adventures, does he also need a Daddy figure on top of it? Someone thought so and they were wrong. To have a grown man play like a little boy, the only reason to bring in a Daddy figure is if you're making one of those 'speciality videos' not when you're trying to create a sitcom with mass appeal.

The biggest shock was the lack of women. Lewis and Randall Johnson received very little air time. Richter's office was in a strip mall where all the businesses were, apparently, run by men since that's what his posse was made up of. Where's the subversion in that?

Where Richter works best is instances that resemble life but give it a twist. The show seemed to exist in TV Land: 1971. Not a lot to relate to and not a lot for Richter to cut loose on. When Richter's reduced to Dennis the Menace (and that's what having the Daddy figure did), it's not going to make for strong TV.

Only one episode seemed less concerned with sending up the past and more concerned, throughout, with creating a show that lived up to the subversive quality -- the second episode, "Fairway, My Lovely." In this episode, a friend's grossly overweight husband (whom Richter golfed with) had died. Was it murder? In the course of the investigation, Richter is threatened by a golf teacher, learns the dead man had a mistress, learns his own wife (Lewis) thought the obese man was sexy, and learns that the second affair the dead man was having was with the young male caddy. (A tattoo just above the butt exposes the latter.) That and everything else in the script played on the subversive comedy that is Richter's stomping ground. (For the record, learning that a young, blond male was having an affair with the dead man did not lead to homophobic jokes, more of an exasperated, "You too!")

More episodes like that and Richter would have a hit show. As it was, he had his strongest sitcom with Andy Barker, P.I. Conan O'Brien was the behind the scenes force. Due to his pull at NBC (he'll be replacing Jay Leno), O'Brien can get another Richter sitcom on air. If he decides to, everyone involved needs to grasp (a) the subversive nature of Richeter's humor, (b) as with John Belushi, Daddy figures really aren't needed for Richter, and (c) the year is 2007.

With the character of Nicole disappearing after "Fairway, My Lovely" and the character of Jenny mainly shown in bed, bookending episodes, what did they think they had on their hands? It was Jerry Lewis, not O'Brien, who made the boneheaded, sexist remark that women weren't funny. But Andy Barker, P.I. played out like O'Brien had said it. As Andy, his two buddies and his Daddy figure went from here to there and back again, repeatedly, throughout each episode, you noticed that women weren't offered a place at the table. Don't think that didn't register with viewers.

What registered behind the camera? With his three male sidekicks, as each episode unfolded, it became obvious that Wally was getting the loud bits Richter should have been given and that Simon's dialogue was funnier than the star's. Again, three sidekickes is two too many and when you don't grasp that, and have writers trying to create moments for all, the star ends up sidelined.

The pilot and the second episode remain the best work Andy Richter's done in a show of his own. That made it all the more depressing to watch it descend, episode after episode. As it is, his finest primetime TV acting was done on The New Old Christine. That might be because he was working off Julia Louis-Dreyfus or it might be because it took place in "modern times." It might be a combination. But when you throw him back to 1971, surrounded by men, he's not going to be as funny. He wouldn't have been funny in 1971. He would have been the character the others rolled their eyes about. The times have changed and one of the saddest things about Andy Barker, P.I. was the possibility that maybe the producers weren't sending up an earlier era but longing for it.

1 Book, 5 Minutes

bluegrit


Jim: We're doing a book discussion again. Participating are The Third Estate Sunday Review's Dona, Jess, Ty, Ava and me, Jim, Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude, Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man, C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review, Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills), Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix, Mike of Mikey Likes It!, Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz, and Wally of The Daily Jot. We're pressed for time more than usual but we wanted to note Laura Flanders's Blue Grit. Mike, set us up.

Mike: Laura Flanders' is the host of RadioNation with Laura Flanders which airs from seven to ten p.m. eastern time, Saturdays and Sundays on Air America Radio. She's a journalist and broadcaster. In the past, she worked for FAIR. She hosted Your Call on an NPR outlet, she's written at least two other books and edited The W Effect. She is one of the few hosts of an early Air America program to still have that show. In fact, she and Randi Rhodes may be the only ones. Eddie will be thrilled I worked in a plug for Randi Rhodes. The book just came out, her new book, Blue Grit. It's 210 pages of text that retails for $24.95 and you can find it at bookstores, including Borders as Kayla noted, and look for it at your libraries as well, as Marcus noted. And I'll toss to Kat for an overview of the book.

Kat: Anyone who's familiar with Laura's work knows she's not about the beltway. There was some concern among the community that, due to the title, Blue Grit was going to focus on our brave "Blue" elected leaders. I can't imagine anything more boring and, fortunately, Laura's not really interested in it either. What is she interested in? What happened on the ground, who drove issues, who drove turnout? This is a book, one I would say was written with love, to celebrate the people in various communities who work for change, day after day, with or without support from a national party structure, with or without encouragement.

Jim: Thank you both. Ty had three possible excerpts to use and is picking one based on the intro.

Ty: This is from pages 171 and 172 and it's chosen (a) because it will appeal to our intended readers and (b) because it will lead to a conversation:

When the Right's Paul Weyrich, Patrick Buchanan, and Grover Norquist took aim at the Republican Party's elite, it was to skewer its weakness and firm up its principles. The Democratic insurgents aspire to do the same, but so far they have prioritized electing Democrats generally and beating up on media that mistreats Democrats. When a current event threatens to reveal or expand a fissure among Demoncrats over policy, the most influential blogs tend to become awfully quiet awfully fast. When Israeli warplanes were destroying Lebanon's civilian infrastructure in response to the kidnapping of two soldiers and the killing of three others in 2006, Daily Kos and MyDD weren't talking about it; nor was MoveOn. The bloggers were as shamefully silent as the Democratic leadership itself. (Some bloggers said they didn't know enough about the topic, but a lack of information has not typically held bloggers back.) When tens of thousands of immigrants marched in the streets of Illinois, Wisconsin, Florida, Texas, New York, and California, they dominated the local TV news but not the liberal websites. (In Dallas, Chicago, Los Angeles, and many other cities, these protests were the largest in the cities' history.)

Ty (Con't): I'm guessing Rebecca wants to start.

Rebecca: Right. I'll disagree with the use of "kidnapping." Soldiers aren't kidnapped. Otherwise? I was on my honeymoon during that period and not blogging. Everyone was kind enough to fill in for me and, thank you, for that. So I was off on in the tropics [on her honeymoon], I'm referring to Lebanon, by the way, that's what I'm grabbing. The Wall St. Journal was readily available, but I wasn't going to read that. So I was getting the majority of my news by booting up my laptop. Kat and I cover the issue from time to time at our blogs. And let me state that I will be following the Gonzales scandal at my site until I give birth. If I'm lucky, it will continue through the early months of my child being born. I started that while on the road with limited access and it's become an easy story to follow and, as I expand more and more and my back hurts more and more and the baby kicks more and more and I try to get the nursery ready, the clothes and junk purchased, the Lamaze class out of the way, I really do not have time to grab another issue. But the issue of the Israeli government is an important one to me. So I was going all over and I was very disappointed. Sites that are supposedly left repeated talking points that came out of the Bully Boy's mouth. You'd think they'd never heard Phyllis Bennis speak on the topic the way they spat out talking points. I do want to note Elaine and C.I. I knew Elaine would grab some of it because I was on my honeymoon and, boy, did she step up to the plate. She got a ton of hate mails during that period including from AlterPunk. I was really surprised that C.I. did because this has been a big issue of mine since college and The Common Ills' focus is Iraq but C.I. stepped up as well. I do understand the excuse of "I don't know anything about it." I understand that if we're speaking of Mike, for instance. Mike truly did not know anything about until that summer. It wasn't an issue he'd studied. He's young and I wouldn't slam him or anyone else who was truly unfamiliar with it. But I think a lot of the silence had a little to do with not wanting to touch it and I do consider that shameful. That was one of my favorite parts of the book, by the way.

Elaine: Mike did cover it some. Mainly by noting Dalia Hashad's, covering Dalia Hashad's comments on Law and Disorder.

Rebecca: I must have missed that and I do apologize.

Mike: Not a problem. When Rebecca got back from her honeymoon, one of the first things I asked her to do was make time to walk me through that history because I did not know anything about it. I was happy to mention what Dalia said and I could follow what she was talking about. But it really had not been an area I had followed. I knew it was one of Rebecca's biggest things so I went to her the way I'd go to Jim for baseball or C.I. for Iraq.

Ava: I'm not doubting Flanders, regarding the immigration issue, but that does sadden me. Now we were involved [in] that and between that and classes, I wouldn't have had time to check out the Democratic sites, and I do consider most of them to be Democratic and not left. But, out here, in California, that was such a huge issue and it just surprises me and saddens me that there was silence on it. It was a huge issue in other areas as well. When a dopey, dumb ass went on Democracy Now! to piss on what went down in Dallas, Diana, a community member in Dallas, wrote up her response to that, to what the guest said and to what she saw with her own eyes as a participant in the Dallas protest -- which saw at least one million people participating. It was the largest protest Dallas ever had. I think, and obviously, I'm a Latina, that the silence sends a message of who is invited to the table and who isn't. This goes to what I enjoyed the most about the book. I follow the news, we listen to Flanders each Saturday while we're writing, I read several local papers, listen to KPFA, blah, blah, blah. A lot of books covering the time period she's covering would find me thinking, "Yeah, I remember that." And not much else. This isn't a rehash and it's not a clip job. This is a real book that deserves to be called a "book" and you'll learn something from it.

Betty: And you'll often laugh while you do. I marked page 90 and I know time is tight so I'll just read a bit of one paragraph where she's commenting on the emergence of the 527s and the decrease in donations to the Democratic party:

That's the American way, especially if you're affluent. For every pang there is relief. The promise of a rescue-remedy is as American as apple pie or as snake oil.

Betty (Con't): I think it's very important to note that there's humor in the book. It's not a humor book. But there are stories and observations that will bother you, Ava just noted one, and there are moments that will cheer you. I think there's a lot of emotion and heart in the book and I hate the cover but I know C.I.'s going to address that.

Wally: Cedric and I do joint-posts so I probably talk to him more each week than anyone else except C.I. -- who I run every post by. And the point we kept making was this book doesn't pull punches. It names names. This isn't a book that's probably going to see Flanders invited to the chat & chews on Sundays.

Cedric: That was the thing that surprised me and Wally and I kept talking about that over and over last week. Now she does that on her program too. So we probably shouldn't have been surprised. But each day when we'd be looking at the news and trying to figure out what would make for a funny post, we'd be talking about where we were in the book and what had been said and we were always noting the fact that she was as independent in the book as she is on her show.

Wally: Right. And we should probably define "independent" because some are going to think, "Oh, she's a swing voter." I have no idea if she belongs to a party or not. I know she's left. But if you read these books, books in this genre, often, you end up finding a lot of cheerleaders and a lot of hype.

Cedric: Right. I looked at the cover and thought, "Oh no, she's written a James Carville book." But she hasn't. And by "independent" we mean she's not looking, or I'm guessing she's not, for MoveOn or any website to promote the book. It wasn't written with an eye towards that.

Elaine: Rebecca's dying to speak but Dona's asked us to limit our responses so I'll say what I know she wants to say because she just whispered, "Elton John." "Your Song." Just as "Your Song" is grabbed and embraced by many, this book could open with "This is your book." The focus is not on the rare air inhaled in the Beltway. This is the grassroots, the people on the ground. This is their story and she's going to tell it which means some groups won't come off very well because they've worked overtime to undercut popular movements.

Jess: That point's clear throughout but especially in terms of advertising -- both, as on page 160, who made the effective ads that never made it to TV and in terms of where the ad money went -- to network TV with a healthy cut for consultants. Rolling Stone recently did a much praised article on that topic and anyone thinking she's copied that story would do well to remember the lag time in book publishing.

Dona: Okay, I'm sorry to be the bad guy here but we have had technical problems, including all being able to speak during this writing edition, so I did ask everyone to be brief. Mike said only if C.I. went last and was give "ample time." C.I. was going to address the cover of the book because there were complaints to The Common Ills and this site about the cover and also a wrong impression about the book.

C.I.: Cedric mentioned already the James Carville similarity of the cover and he's not the only one who made that comparison. I think the cover is a huge mistake. As I understand, the point of the cover, by the publishers, was to get across the point that (a) Flanders is of the left, (b) that this is tale told in black and white a la a newspaper and (c) [it is] for all in the country, hence the red, white and blue colors. Flanders looks fine in the photo but it's too far to the left. I understand the point of having her on the left but the eye reads left to right in this country and most Western ones. She's on a white background and having used that someone should have grasped that, once you use white as a background, the more colors you add, the more details, the more you clutter up. Ali MacGraw's autobiography made a good use of a white background with their cover. When you use white as the background, you really need to go for simplicity. The blue rectangle at the bottom, with the subtitle of the book, is so much clutter and having gone with a white background, the author's name in simple black font, to then muck it up with the title in blue trimmed in red, in what can best be termed "jumbo" letters, was a mistake on the part of Penguin Press. I've read e-mail after e-mail about how people passed the book on a table display because they didn't register it. I think it's equally true that they did register the visual "noise" and turned from it. An older community member, with bad legs, walked upstairs at her bookstore to get the book. She found it easily on the shelf -- by the spine [of the book]. When she got downstairs, she suggested that they move the book to the displays on the first floor and the clerk pointed to show her that it was on the first floor. In fact, it was right by the staircase. This is a thoughtful book and there's nothing on the cover, other than Flanders herself, to suggest that. She's about a third of the cover lengthwise and height wise. And she's on the left side when, again, the eye goes to the right. I understand the various concepts involved in the design but it is a really bad design and hopefully they will simplify it for the softcover edition. Unless the cover of Naomi Klein's upcoming book has changed, they're using a white background there as well. But they go with simplicity not splashes of different type and color and there's no little blue rectangle on the bottom. Had they just reversed the white and the blue, the cover would have been easier on their eye but when white is the predominate color, and it is the background, the cover is just too much.

Jim: But you liked the book.

C.I.: Oh, I loved the book. But I was trying to get that out as quickly as possible before Dona called time.

Jim: Okay, so the book is strongly recommended by all. If you're among the ones who wrote us about the cover making you think it was a book by James Carville, Paul Begala was also cited in some e-mails, it's nothing like a PowerPoint presentation. It's a real book and one you should read.

-------------
A visual for those wanting a simpler version of the cover:

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